Impacts of Rodents on Rice
Production in Asia
Grant Singleton
Summary
This paper provides an up-to-date review of the
preharvest impact of rodent pests on rice-based
agricultural systems in 11 Asian countries:
Bangladesh, Cambodia, People’s Republic of China,
India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, and
Vietnam. Under traditional rice farming systems,
rodents generally cause chronic losses to production
in the order of 5–10% per annum. In many areas, this
figure has risen dramatically over the last few
decades, most noticeably in places where cropping
frequency has increased from one to two or three
crops per year. Today, it is not unusual for
smallholder rice farmers to report chronic yield losses
of 20–30% per annum, rising to 50% or even total
crop loss in certain seasons. In many areas, farmers
actually abstain from planting a second or third rice
crop because of the expectation of severe rodent
damage. This ‘forgone’ loss in productivity is rarely
taken into account. In Asia, a loss of 5% of rice
production amounts to approximately 30 million t;
enough rice to feed 180 million people for 12
months. Postharvest losses are probably of a similar
magnitude to preharvest losses. However, the data are
patchy and there have been few studies of the impacts
of rodents on postharvest storage of rice in the past
decade.
From the assessment of impacts of rodents on
pre- and postharvest operations, it is clear that
rodents play a significant role in influencing food
security and poverty alleviation programs for the
rural poor in Asia. Another important impact is the
influence of rodent-borne diseases on the health, and
hence, productivity output of humans (both rural and
urban). The prevalence of rodent zoonoses is
increasing and is likely to be an important impetus
for rodent management in rice agricultural
communities in the future.
This report highlights the relatively few
published studies on the ecology, biology, and
management of rodent pests compared with some
major insect and disease pests of rice. There is much
basic research still required to underpin the strategies
being developed to manage rodent pests. Moreover,
much of the current rodent control activities by
farmers are reactive rather than palliative. Few
farmers follow the recommendations of their
government agencies. This is a major issue (either the
recommendations are ineffective or they are
inappropriate for farmers (i.e., too expensive or too
labor intensive).
General research needs are identified in this
report as well as specific priorities for research and
extension for national agricultural research and
extension systems (NARES) determined from
consultations with collaborators in specific countries.
The Rodent Ecology Work Group of IRRI provides
one important avenue to promote research on rodent
pests in the region. However, stronger expert input is
required. IRRI is well placed to play an important
role in providing access to this expertise, in providing
leadership in research, and in building the capacity of
extension staff and farmers in Asia to translate
research outputs into management outcomes for the
rural poor.
In summary, IRRI has the unique comparative
advantage to provide the foci and regional linkages
for research and training and the continuity for
tackling the important problem of rodent impacts on
rice production. The major outcomes from this
research and extension effort would be significant
improvements in agricultural production, in food
security, and in both human and environmental
health.
Recommendations
1. IRRI develops the expertise that enables it to
provide scientific leadership and/or direction in
projects on rodent management in rice-based
agroecosystems in Asia. IRRI has the
institutional linkages (NARES and advanced
1
 research institutes [ARIs]), the high profile, and
the continuity that have it well placed to play an
important leadership role.
2. IRRI provides a catalyst for developing research
in rice-based agroecosystems that aims to
develop ecologically based rodent management
that is environmentally benign and is consistent
with sustainable agricultural practices. This is
currently being addressed through the Rodent
Ecology Work Group (REWG), although the
rodent expertise is being accessed via informal
linkages with the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Sustainable Ecosystems because of a collabo-
rative Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID)-funded project (ceases
June 2002).
3. IRRI takes a lead in addressing the critical
shortfall in research expertise on vertebrate pests,
particularly rodents, in Asia. The new 4-week
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) course
developed by the IRRI Training Center now
includes a 2-day module on rodent biology and
management. This is an encouraging
development; however, participants in the course
will not have a primary interest in rodent
management. I strongly recommend the
development of a 1-month training course
directed specifically at principles and practices
of rodent biology and management with an
emphasis on ecologically based rodent
management.
4. IRRI considers in the immediate future an annual
appointment of 2-3 months of a rodent specialist
who is active in research in the region (shuttle
scientist). This person would play a lead role in
the REWG as part of the Lowland Irrigated Rice
Research Consortium; concentrate in developing
multilateral linkages and promoting and
supporting key research priorities; assist with
developing and instigating training programs
(face-to-face) and training modules (web-based);
promote multidisciplinary linkages (e.g.,
ecology, sociology, and agronomy; upland and
lowland cropping systems; crop and forage
systems); and promote capacity-building of
farmers through facilitating the translation of
research outputs into management outcomes for
farmers.
5. IRRI considers in its next long-term plan a full-
time position to provide leadership in research
and extension of rodent biology and manage-
ment. This position could be supported through
2
either core funds or external funds. Some
possible donor agencies based on current interest
are listed in a subsequent section .
6. IRRI considers developing or facilitating research
that links rodent management in rice cropping
systems with improvements in health of rural
farming communities. There are many rodent-
borne zoonoses and it is recommended to
concentrate on one or two, such as leptospirosis
and rat typhus. A linkage between IRRI and the
World Health Organization (WHO) would be
beneficial in this circumstance.
7. The REWG is serving an important role in
fostering bilateral projects with NARES on
rodent management in Asia. However, a low
funding base limits its current activities. A brief
description of research and implementation
needs for Asia is presented on pages 19–22.
These are priority areas to develop if further
funds become available.
Linkages between IRRI, CSIRO, and
NARES
Rodent Ecology Work Group (1998-2001)
In 1998, the IRRI IPM Network and the CSIRO
Rodent Research Group established the REWG that
promotes
• communication between scientists and extension
personnel who are involved or interested in the
biology and management of rodent pests;
• collaborative research on decisions of rodent
management by farmers, population ecology of
rodents, and assessment of the association
between yield loss of crops and rodent density in
the region;
• strengthening of capacity through facilitating
exchange and collaboration between scientists
from NARES and advanced agricultural research
centers; and
• an important focus for the exchange of informa-
tion on rodent issues between institutions within
the CGIAR network (none of the CGIARs
currently have expertise on rodent biology and
management).
The specific objectives were as follows:
• To enhance ecological research in rodent
management;
• To utilize the ecological framework in
developing management strategies;
 • To provide a forum for rodent experts for
reviewing, developing, and conducting
collaborative research on rodent management
and sharing of research methods and results;
• To develop a shared set of objectives and
research agenda and evaluations of control
options; and
• To share experiences, methodologies, and
results, and promote exchange of expertise
between countries.
Current activities of the IRRI REWG (linked
with CSIRO Rodent Research Group)
(i) Rodent Pest Network e-mail bulletin board
(established in June 1998, it currently has 115
members from 66 institutions in 29 countries.
(ii) Rodent Newsletter “War Against
Rats”(published twice a year, the newsletter
has 240 subscribers from 165 institutions in
49 countries.
(iii) Collaborative studies
• CSIRO, IRRI, Institute of Agricultural
Sciences (IAS) and Plant Protection
Department (PPD), Vietnam: “Enhancing
capacity in rodent management in the
Mekong delta region using nonchemical
methods.” This is funded by AusAID under
its Capacity-building for Agriculture and
Rural Development (CARD) scheme
(2000-2002).
• IRRI, IAS, PPD Vietnam, Danish Pest
Infestation Laboratory, CSIRO: Seed funds
to promote the establishment of the
REWG. This was funded by IRRI-Danish
International Development Agency
(DANIDA) (1998-99).
(iv) Annual meetings of rodent scientists from
Asia and elsewhere (1998-2001) under the
umbrella of the project “Management of
rodent pests in rice-based farming systems in
Southeast Asia” funded by the Australian
Centre for International Agricultural Research
(ACIAR).
The REWG (2001-2004) – as part of the IRRI
Irrigated Lowland Rice Research Consortium
New funding from the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation (SDC) came on
stream in 2001 to fund a 4-year consortium on
lowland irrigated rice. The REWG is one of five
work groups funded under this consortium.
The objectives of the REWG are as follows:
1. To enhance ecological research on rodent pest
species.
2. To develop further the concept of “ecologically
based rodent management (EBRM).”
3. To provide a forum for rodent experts to develop
and conduct research, to share research
methodologies, and to share results.
The budget is approximately US$123,000 with
US$20,000-25,000 distributed each year to NARES.
In an operational sense, the REWG will
1. serve as a platform for research and extension
partnerships,
2. optimize expertise in the region from scientists
belonging to advanced research centers,
3. assist through leveraging support from national
agencies and funding bodies to support bilateral
programs, and
4. provide an opportunity for joint planning of
research priorities and methodologies, and then
implementation.
An inaugural meeting of staff from IRRI and
NARES was held in Hanoi on 27 Sep 2001. Sixteen
people attended the meeting, drawn from Australia,
Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailand, United
Kingdom, and Vietnam. Two Cambodians were
present as observers. (Cambodia does not grow
sufficient irrigated lowland rice to be part of this
consortium.)
A key discussion point was on how to raise
awareness of the REWG. Physical actions were
identified (e.g., create a web page), and there was
discussion on the main focus of rodent management
and how to sell the high need for research and
extension in the region. Four selling points were
identified: poverty alleviation, food security, public
health, and environmental issues (sustainable
production). In countries such as Thailand and
Vietnam where rice is exported, it was decided that
public perception on health and environmental issues
would be of higher importance in lowland irrigated
rice regions.
Training
(a) Some researchers from developing countries
may be supported by REWG funds to attend
the 2nd International Conference on Rodent
Biology and Management.
(b) Training courses on IPM/EBRM at IRRI (it is
possible to use leverage of the REWG to get
bilateral funding to support in-country people
to attend international training courses.
3
REWG activities, October 2001 to March 2003
Each country identified key research and extension
activities to be funded during the 18-month period
from October 2001 to March 2003 (see table below).
These activities were given interim approval.
Each institution provided details on the methods,
budget, and timelines in November 2001. Dr.
Singleton, Prof. Escalada, and Dr. K.L. Heong
reviewed the proposed methodologies of each project
prior to final approval of their respective budgets in
early 2002.
Preharvest losses in rice production in
Asia caused by rodents
Economic importance of rice to the region
More than 90% of the world’s rice is produced and
eaten in Asia, with rice producing 35–60% of the
total food energy for the three billion people living in
the region (Khush 1993).
Rice is the single most important food crop in
Southeast Asia. In countries such as Indonesia, where
rice is the staple food, self-sufficiency in rice
production is an important influence on social
stability. In recent years, Indonesia has needed to
import rice to meet her domestic demand. The rat is
now the number one preharvest pest for rice crops in
Indonesia (Geddes 1992, Singleton and Petch 1994)
and its economic impact is of major concern to the
Government of Indonesia.
In Asia, claims of annual preharvest losses in rice
production by rodents range from 5% in Malaysia to
17% in Indonesia (Table 1). In countries where losses
are low on a national scale, the patchy distribution of
rat damage can still result in devastating losses on a
local scale. This is often the case in Malaysia.
Activity
Economics of rat meat business, Mekong Delta, Vietnam
Campaign for CTBS in Bac Lieu Province
Movement on rats and their use of habitat
Develop better methodology for damage assessment
KAP survey (post-test) in Vinh Phuc, Vietnam
Assessment of impact of CTBS technology in
Indonesia - Central Java and Sulawesi
KAP survey (post-test) in Cilimaya, West Java, Indonesia
Anthropological effects of rodent management, Indonesia
Problem definition and extent of rodent damage in
lowland irrigated rice
Baseline survey of KAP, Thailand
Baseline survey of KAP, Philippines
4
Therefore, in Malaysia, rodents are still considered an
important preharvest pest.
Under traditional rice farming systems, rodents
probably caused chronic losses to production in the
order of 5-10% per annum. However, in many areas,
this figure has risen dramatically over the last few
decades, most noticeably in places where cropping
frequency has increased from one to two or three crops
per year. Today, it is not unusual for smallholder rice
farmers to report chronic yield losses of 20-30% per
annum, rising to 50% or even total crop loss in certain
seasons. In many areas, farmers actually abstain from
planting a second or third rice crop because of the
expectation of severe rodent damage. This ‘forgone’
loss in productivity is rarely taken into account.
In this section, I review the data available on
preharvest losses caused by rodents in Asian rice
fields. There are few detailed studies of rodent
damage to rice tillers at the field scale. The error
estimates from these intensive studies are usually
±2%. However, when one scales up to the village,
district, provincial, or national level, the damage
estimates become less robust. It is extraordinarily
difficult to provide accurate assessments of rodent
damage above the field level because of the typical
patchy pattern of rodent damage. Table 1 summarizes
the impacts of rodent pests at the national level.
Details of the origins of these data are provided for
each country in subsequent sections. A second table
converts these impacts for selected countries and for
Asia into forgone consumption of rice for humans
because of what has been consumed by rats (Table 2).
A word of caution may be given to those who
rely on the generic participatory rural assessment
(PRA) for gauging whether rodents are important
pests of rice systems. In most cases, the questions on
Country and Budget
institution (US$)
Vietnam, PPD 4,000
Vietnam, PPD 7,000
Vietnam, IAS 4,000
Vietnam, IAS 4,000
Vietnam, NIPP 1,500
Indonesia, RIR 3,000
Indonesia, RIR 2,000
Indonesia, RIR/IRRI (Morin) 1,000
Lao PDR 4,000
Thailand, DAE 2,000
Philippines, Leyte State University 5,500
Table 1. Overview of the preharvest impact of rodents on rice in Asia.

Country Prehar vest loss (%) Comments

Bangladesh >50% in districts No national data

Cambodia Patchy; no national data High rank as pest by farmers
China PDR 5–10% Few data over past decade
India 5–15% Few data over past decade
Indonesia 15–17%
Lao PDR Upland 10–15%; higher in outbreak years Upland rice; <5% in lowland rice
Malaysia 5% Few data over past decade
Myanmar 5-40%; with outbreaks No national data
Philippines Variable; >20% in districts Require revision of national data
Thailand 6% lowland; 7% upland Few data over past decade
Vietnam >500,000 ha with high damage No estimate of percentage losses at national level

Table 2. Forgone human consumption because of grain lost to rodent pests before harvest, based on 1999 estimates.a

Country Production of Estimated rodent Production Estimated Annual Rice People

and “rough rice” damage without production consumptionb daily fed/year if
population (‘000 t) (%) rodents loss (rough rice) calorie no rat loss
(million) (‘000 t) (‘000 t) (kg person-1 yr-1) intake (million)
(%)

ASIA 540,621 5 567,652 27,031 150 32 181

(3,585.4) 10 594683 54,062 362
(206.3) (1895 import) 10 54,487 4,953 19.9

Indonesia 49,534 17 57,955 8,421 249 52 33.8

Vietnamc 31394 30%–615,000 ha 33585 2,191 280 67 7.8

(77.6) (3800 export) 5%–7 million ha
20%–615,000 ha 32619 1,225 4.4
5%(3.5 million ha
a
The production and consumption figures are drawn from IRRI rice facts. bAnnual consumption is generally given as kg person-1 yr-1 of milled rice
and production relates to “rough rice.” Therefore, we need to convert by dividing production figures, adjusted for exported and imported grain, by
total population. For Vietnam, the high export indicates more grain in storage so we a used 1.7 multiplier based on figures from Asia and
Indonesia. cVietnam has an average yield of 4.1 t ha-1; national figures in 1999 indicated that rats caused high damage (10–75%) to 245,000 ha
in the Mekong Delta and 370,000 ha in the Red River Delta. Low damage of 5–10% was recorded in 610,000 ha in the Red River Delta.
Nationally, we have developed two scenarios: the first assumes an average of 30% loss in areas where damage is high (a reasonable assumption,
given some crops are not harvested at all) and 5% loss on average elsewhere; and the second, a conservative estimate, assumes an average
loss of 20% of production for 615,000 ha and an average loss of 5% for half of the remaining area of production (i.e., 3,500,000 ha).

pest impact posed to the farmers will provide
responses that focus on insects because most farmers
equate the word pest to mean insects, not rodents.
Two recent books provide a good resource for
those interested in rodent biology and management.
The first book addressed the theme of ecologically
based management of rodent pests (Singleton et al
1999a). The second book has a broader theme of rats,
mice, and people (Singleton et al 2003). Both books
have contributions that specifically address the
problem of rodent pests in rice agroecosystems in
Asia.
BANGLADESH
There are two main rice agricultural systems in
Bangladesh: irrigated and lowland rainfed. The
principal pest species are Bandicota indica and B.
bengalensis. There is limited economic assessment of
the effect of rats on rainfed deepwater rice. The
results of the evaluation, however, were impressive:
yield losses were 68% in 1987 and 32% in 1988
(Islam et al 1993). An important caveat to these
results is that the studies were conducted on a
research farm at sites that had a history of high rat
damage.
Another study in 1982-83 reported rat damage to
both the winter irrigated (“boro” rice crop) and the
deepwater crops (Karim et al 1987). The rat damage
was quantified for the deepwater crop by counting
the number of stems cut. On average, 3.5 and 2.1
stems m–2 were damaged at the flooding stage and at
harvest, respectively. A mean of 56.7 undamaged
stems m–2 were present at harvest, indicating that

5
mean loss of tillers m-2 to rats was 0.9% (5.6/62.3;
assuming additive effects of the damage). However,
estimates of minimum yield loss obtained by
excavating burrows of Bandicota spp. indicated that
crop losses were much higher. These rats hoard rice
in their burrows. A mean of 57.8 kg rice ha-1 was
stored in burrows, which reflected a 5.7% loss in
production based on the average national yield for
deepwater rice in 1982-83.
There are few data available on the ranking of
the impact of rodents on rice production in
Bangladesh. The most recent reports are at least 15
years old. One was a 4-year survey in Bangladesh
from the early 1980s that listed rodents as the fifth
most important pest of deepwater rice (Catling 1980).
Up to 52% of fields had significant rat damage at
harvest of the wet-season rice. A later survey ranked
rodents as the third most important pest (Catling et al
1988).
An impact survey of rodents to assess effects on
sustainable livelihood of subsistence farmers is
urgently needed and is proposed as part of a Poverty
Elimination Through Rice Research Assistance
(PETRRA) study on IPM involving rodents
(Belmain, pers. commun.).
CAMBODIA
In Cambodia, there are no reliable estimates of the
impact of rodents at the national level. Rodent pests
cause the greatest restraint to production, especially
in times of population outbreaks. The history of these
outbreaks is not documented. In non-outbreak years,
the impact of rats is greatest on individual families
(Jahn et al 1999). The best available data have been
collected from farmer surveys and are summarized in
Table 3. Annually, it is estimated that 0.1% of the
total rice production area suffers from 100% damage
by rats (DA 1998). At a finer scale, a PRA on factors
that reduce rice production found that 80–100% of
farmers generally considered rats to be their main
preharvest pest (Table 4). In a village where irrigated
rice was the main production system, a majority of
farmers estimated that losses caused by rats were
greater than 20% (L. Leung and M. Solieng, 2001,
pers. commun.).
The principal pest species appear to be Rattus
argentiventer, B. indica, and R. exulans. However,
few data are available. Based on farmers’
descriptions, R. rattus, R. koratensis (= R.
sikkimensis), and R. losea are probably present in
villages as well (Leung 1998).
The following quotes drawn directly from Jahn
et al (1999) summarize what is known about the
impact of rodents in Cambodia:
“....rice production is 86% rainfed lowland rice,
8% irrigated lowland, and 6% deepwater and upland
rice. Among lowland rice farmers (n = 1265), 27%
reported wet-season rat problems, and 46% reported
dry-season rat problems.”
“Due to the small-scale, subsistence nature of
Cambodian rice farming, and due to poor distribution
of food, rat outbreaks destroy savings and create food
shortages. An outbreak in 1996 destroyed rice
(>12,600 t) sufficient to feed over 50,000 people for a
year.”
“...in 1996, yield losses from rats represented
0.3% of national production and only 4% of Svay
Rieng’s total paddy production. National statistics do
not convey the fact that, during an outbreak,
hundreds of farmers lose their entire crop, sending
them into a cycle of poverty from which few escape.”

Table 3. Lowland rice areas that suffered high losses due to rats (>70%), Cambodia 1990–96 (Jahn et al 1999).

Province Area damaged (ha) Total Mean

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Kampong Thom - 161 118 76 68 456 1965 2844 474
Siem Reap - - 181 - - 103 - 284 142
Battambang 592 98 - 193 - - - 883 294
Kandal 452 - - 72 - - - 524 262
Prey Veng - 64 - - 86 511 125 786 197
Svay Rieng 93 164 236 472 230 786 4902 6883 983
Takeo - 56 - 183 - - 580 1011 337
Total 1512 543 535 1052 384 1856 7695 13577 1940
-1
Av yield (t ha ) 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.60 1.64
Estimated 1965 733 749 1525 576 2969 12619 21136 3019
production loss (t)
Value of 285,818 106,618 108,945 221,818 83,782 431,855 1,835,490 3,074,327 439,190
production loss
(US$)
a
Price of rice = 400 riel kg-1; exchange rate US$1 = 2,750 riel (1997); - = no information.

6
Table 4. Response to a question from a participatory rural assessmenta: “Which pests caused the highest damage to your
rice crop?”.

Pests causing highest damage to rice crops

Farming community Farmer Rats Insects Crabs Birds

respondents (no.)

Svay Rieng (1) 35 100 0 0 0

Svay Rieng (2) 33 100 0 0 0
Bantey Mean Chay (2) 23 100 0 0 0
Bantey Mean Chay (2) 21 81 0 19 0
Siem Reap (1) 27 96 4 0 0
Seam Reap (2) 22 18 82 0 0
Pursat 12 92 8 0 0
Kamphong Cham 43 81 19 0 0
Battambang 18 61 0 39 0
a
PRA conducted by Dr.Leung, Dr. Solieng, and others in Cambodia in 2000 (unpubl. data).

Table 5. Relationship between yield loss caused by rodents

and index of rodent abundance in late rice crops in Linxian,
As for Lao PDR, the rice production systems are Guangxi Province (Zhao 1996).
changing toward greater irrigation and use of
varieties that allow two crops per year. This greater Index of
Year Area rodent Yield loss Average loss,
intensification may lead to an increase in rodent (ha) abundance (x 103 t) (kg ha-1)
problems in rice crops in the future. (%)
A new project funded by ACIAR focusing on
1984 4,266.67 17.7 2.50 589.5
lowland irrigated rice cropping systems began in 1985 5,000.00 7.7 1.44 289.5
September 2001. The project involves scientists from 1986 7,573.33 6.9 1.96 259.5
the University of Queensland and is aimed at
incorporating strong farmer participation through an 1999).
adaptive management framework. The principal aim
of the project is to develop better rodent pest Report on rodent impacts from Sichuan Plant
management strategies that are consistent with the Protection Agency (2001)
ecological, technical, and socioeconomic constraints
faced by local communities. To achieve this goal, Because of the lack of an integrated approach,
Cambodian personnel have been drawn from the systematic monitoring, proper baiting technique,
principal research (Cambodian Agricultural Research hazards of poisoning, as well as changes in the
and Development Institute) and extension (Provincial ecological and sociopolitical environment, the
Office of Agricultural Extension) agencies. damage caused by rodent pests is becoming serious
not only in the poorer mountainous areas but also in
CHINA the highly productive plains in Sichuan Province. The
mean food grain loss is estimated at about 320 kg
There are no published figures on the impact of ha–1, with loss of rice yield for particular farmers
rodents on rice production in the 1990s. Before 1990, ranging from 0.5 to 15%. A significant amount of
the rodent problems were serious, especially from grain (1 million t) is also lost in storage to rodent
1982 to 1986 (Table 5). In China, in the period pests.
immediately prior to 1985, the official estimated loss The plains of Sichuan Province is a “rich” area
of rice to rodents was approximately 10% (Zhao compared with the mountainous areas. Rice yield in
1996). The main species that cause damage to rice are Sichuan is about 6,500 kg ha–1, and the area devoted
R. norvegicus, R. losea, R. flavipectus (=R. to rice is about 2,250,000 ha. No data from other
tanezumi), Mus musculus, Apodemus agrarius, R. provinces exist, but Dr. Guo Cong (pers. commun.)
nitidus, and B. indica. In the Dongting Lake area, suggests that the rat problem may be easing
Hunan Province, Microtus fortis occasionally causes elsewhere in China.
very serious preharvest damage to rice (Zhang et al In the 1980s, great effort was focused on

7
 Table 6. Comparison of effects of three different control methods on rodent
damage to preharvest rice in Dongting Plain, Huanshou County,
Hunan Province (Chen 1996).

Treatment Year Mean yield Rate of Loss

(kg ha-1) loss (%) (kg ha–1)

Early-season rice Integrated 1988 6226.5 0.29 18.0

control 1989 5737.5 0.10 5.7
Control by 1988 6190.5 0.76 46.9
rodenticide 1989 5796.0 0.56 32.4
Traditional 1988 5887.5 9.13 537.3
control 1989 5643.0 7.49 422.7
Late-season rice Integrated 1988 6019.5 0.52 1.92
control 1989 6094.5 0.11 6.75
Control by 1988 6130.5 1.17 71.7
rodenticide 1989 5772.0 0.84 48.45
Traditional 1988 5763.0 8.59 495.0
control 1989 5875.5 8.60 505.35

organized campaigns (Table 6). The scale of these
campaigns was very large. In recent years, however,
local governments are not as influential and these
campaigns are no longer being organized or financed.
Instead, the current method adopted by farmers is to
buy rodenticide or bait from local markets, with
management implemented at the individual farmer
level.
In China, the legal rodenticides are anticoagu-
lants. However, farmers do not like the “slow” action
and they do not see dead animals for their efforts.
Therefore, most of the rodenticides in the market are
illegal (Guo Cong, pers. commun.).
INDIA
In India, rodents have long been reported as having a
substantial impact on rice crops (Rao and Joshi 1986)
and are now the main constraint to rice production,
irrespective of production system (Parshad 1999, Rao
2003). The principal pest species are B. bengalensis,
Millardia meltada, and Mus booduga. Some 25 years
ago, rodents were reported to consume between 10%
and 15% of the national production of all grains in
India (Barnett and Prakash 1975). Recently, Hart
(2001) claimed that the overall losses of grain to
rodents in India were approximately 25% in the field
before harvest and 25-30% postharvest. She further
suggested that losses to rodents alone cost at least
US$5 billion annually in stored food and seed grain
in India. Rice crops are a vital food for India and both
chronic and catastrophic losses to rodents have been
reported. The chronic losses are economically more
important and often these losses go unrecognized
(Sridhara 1992).
Although Hart’s claims appear rather high, there
is compelling evidence that rodents have a major
impact on rice production in India. Parshad (1999)
has recently produced an excellent review of the
impact of rodents on rice production. The results of
his review, together with reviews by Sridhara (1992)
and Chopra et al (1996), are summarized in Table 7.
This analysis indicates that preharvest losses to rice
are generally in the range of 5–15%.
Added to the chronic annual losses caused by
rodents are episodic outbreaks that cause famine-like
conditions (Chauhan and Saxena 1983, Prakash and
Mathur 1987). A summary of rodent outbreaks in rice
production areas from 1990 to 2000 is provided in
Table 8.
Two regions particularly hard hit by these
outbreaks are Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh. The
cause of these outbreaks is not clear, although in
these regions, the flowering of bamboo is often given
as a causal factor.
Periodic outbreaks also occur in Andhra Pradesh
following flash floods or cyclones in this deltaic
region. For example, the 1996 cyclone was followed
by an outbreak of rodent populations in 1997, leading
to damage of up to 29% of the standing rice crop at
early tillering. This prompted the government to
provide free rodenticides at a cost of US$3.8 million.
In one district alone (West Godavari), 4.3 million
farmers were affected by the rodent outbreak (Rao
1998).
In India, major changes in agricultural systems
have increased the rodent problem in recent decades.
For example, the Indira Gandhi Canal brought more
cultivable land under irrigation, but there was a
concomitant increase in rodent impacts on crops
because the irrigation canals provided access routes
for the lesser bandicoot rat to move into areas where
it had never been previously recorded. This species
then replaced desert rodents as the dominant rodent
species (Mohan Rao, pers. commun.).
Dr. Rao is working in India in the development
wing of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. His role
is to try to link the research of the All-India

8
 Table 7. Preharvest losses to rice crops in India attributed to rodents.

Location Rice crop Rodent impact Reference

Punjab Irrigated 5% (range 1.1–17.5) Anonymous 1991 (Indian

(46–528 kg ha–1) Council of Agricultural
Research)
Uttar Pradesh Irrigated 98–213 kg ha–1) Rana et al 1994
Madhya Pradesh Rainfed 1.3–6.7% Patel et al 1992
60.8 kg ha–1
West Bengal Irrigated 261 kg ha–1 Chakroborty 1975
Meghalaya Lowland and 12.5% Singh et al 1994
upland rainfed 10%
Mizoram Upland rainfed 4.3% Singh et al 1994
Andhra Pradesh ?Delta rice 2.7–100% Rangareddy 1994
60–2,345 kg ha–1
Rainfed 9.6–60.6% Rajasekhraran and
Dharmaraju 1975
Delta rice 15% (range 10–60%) Anonymous 1977
Karnataka Various 1.1–44.5% Chakravarthy et al 1992
Various 62–79.7% Prakash et al 1986
?? Irrigated 13.3% Chaudhry and Badaya 1985
Haryana Irrigated 3.7% (range 0.5–16.4%) Chopra et al 1996
a
Modified from Sridhara (1992), Chopra et al (1996), Parshad (1999), and Rao (2003).

Table 8. Rodent outbreaks in India, 1990-2000 (Rao 2003).

Year State or territory Area affected Estimated loss

1990/91 Gujarat Saurashtra region Not available

1994 Pondicherr y Karaikal region Not available
1994 Tamil Nadu Cauvery Delta Not available
1997/98 Andhra Pradesh 210,000 ha in Godavari Delta 3,301.85 t of rice
1999 Manipur 1,000 ha of jhum rice Not available
1999/2000 Mizoram 53,945 ha of rice, maize and vegetable crops Not available
1999/2000 Arunachal Pradesh 7,000 ha of rice and maize Not available
1999/2000 Nagaland 1,000 ha of rice Not available
2000 Manipur 1,264 ha of jhum rice Not available

Coordinated Research Project (consisting of 10 farming communities

cooperating centers spread through India) with
extension staff working from within a different
institute (Institute of Central Agricultural Research
[ICAR]). ICAR extension staff have no training in
rodent management and have few linkages with
rodent researchers. Therefore, the national seminars
or workshops organized by ICAR institutes do not
cover topics on rodent problems. The result is that
research and extension departments are working in
isolation to address rodent pest problems; research
personnel are unaware of what is going on in
extension and vice versa. Dr. Rao has an unenviable
task. He took the lead in the following activities that
he is trying to instigate at different levels in India (see
also Rao 2003):
State sector
• Popularizing the nonchemical approach
• Popularizing the community approach among
• Inclusion of rodents in pest/disease surveillance
activities
• Creating awareness through various
communication media
• Making available safer rodenticides at vulnerable
places
• Creating more trained manpower in rodent pest
management
• Liaising with public health authorities
• Ensuring quality control, especially in the use of
zinc phosphide
Central sector
• Enhancing research activities at ICAR on rodent
surveillance and nonlethal rodent management
strategies
• Extending timely guidance to states/UTs on
proper control operations
• Ensuring the availability of chemical inputs from
the pesticide industry

9

Private industry sector
• Timely supply of rodenticides by the industry
• R & D for developing safer formulations
• Ensuring availability of rodenticides at
vulnerable places
Dr. Rao provides the following quote, which is
true of much of Asia, with the possible exception of
China.
“In South Asia, there is a dwindling number of
competent scientists working on rodent pest
management. Scientists with entomology background
are normally recruited for rodent projects and
naturally they are not much interested in rodent
research since the subject is totally different and their
performance is often assessed in an entomological
framework for personal promotions.” (Mohan Rao
2001, pers. commun.)
INDONESIA
The most common rodent pest in rice fields is the rice
field rat, R. argentiventer, which in Indonesia is the
single most important preharvest pest to rice crops,
causing annual losses of around 17% (Geddes 1992,
Singleton and Petch 1994). This figure of 17% has
been used repeatedly for Indonesia. We will now
consider whether there is support for this estimate.
Discussion will focus on lowland irrigated rice
because this is the most important crop in Indonesia
and the information on rodent impacts is primarily
confined to this crop.
Detailed damage assessment
Buckle (1988) conducted detailed measures of crop
depredations by rodents in Java. His studies included
detailed damage assessment in farmers’ fields.
Buckle also used small fenced plots to estimate
potential yield where there was no rodent damage. He
concluded that 17% was a conservative estimate of
preharvest losses caused by rodents in rice.
An ACIAR-funded project on rodent biology and
management began in West Java in 1995. This study
included damage assessment across 6–8 sites with
rodent damage quantified at 10 transects per site (see
Singleton et al [1998] for details). In the 1995 dry
season and 1995-96 wet season, the combined mean
yield was approximately 10.1 t ha–1 on sites with
rodent management (using a trap-barrier system with
a lure crop) and 8.1 t ha–1 on untreated sites. Rodent
10
management did not eliminate rodent damage–for the
dry-season crop, 8% of tillers were damaged during
the ripening stage of the crop (Singleton et al 1998).
Therefore, in 1995-96, rats caused annual losses of
25–30% to rice production. Preharvest yield losses of
15–25% were similarly reported from a study
conducted in West Java in 1997 (Singleton et al 2003)
and these were similar to those reported by the
Indonesian Bureau of Statistics for West Java in 1997
(15–18%). However, in some years, losses were not
as severe. For example, in the 1996 dry-season crop
at the same study site, losses were estimated to be
less than 5%.
The ACIAR study indicated that annual losses in
rice production ranged from 5% to 30%, with most
years >15%. Again, this is consistent with an estimate
of annual losses of around 17%.
Broad-scale provincial damage assessment
Figures on rodent damage are collected at the
national level by the Forecasting Center for Pest and
Diseases. The provincial staff who collect these data
generally have training in entomology or plant
pathology. None would have been trained in rodent
biology and, consequently, they would only notice
rodent damage when it is at a high level. The
reporting consists of estimates of areas with moderate
(>10%), high (>30%), or severe (70–100%) rodent
damage (Tables 9, 11a & b). Given that 5% damage
to tillers is usually not noticeable, and 10% damage is
only detectable by a trained eye, then damage
estimates of 10(30% would typically be underesti-
mates of damage intensity. Nevertheless, estimates of
mean damage intensity were generally higher than
15%. Of particular note were the high losses in Java
and Sulawesi—the two principal rice bowls of
Indonesia.
Of interest is the fact that 5,225 ha were 100%
destroyed by rodents in 1995. Given an average farm
size of 0.75 ha (range of 0.5–1.0 ha) in Indonesia,
then approximately 7,000 families would have had no
crop to harvest. This alone highlights the important
impact of rodent pests on rice agricultural systems in
Indonesia.
Forgone rice cropping
In 1998, Indonesia faced a critical rice shortage
because of the effect of drought. A national IP-Padi
300 program was developed with the aim of
identifying areas where a third rice crop could be
produced (based on water availability) during
August-November. Rodents were identified as one of
the most important factors likely to severely limit the
yield of this third crop. Consequently, much
manpower and resources went into managing rodents
during this growing season. Although a reasonable
crop was produced, the threat of rodent impacts is
one of the main reasons that a third crop has not been
grown in these areas subsequently.
In both eastern and southern Kalimantan, large
tracts of land have been cleared and irrigated for the
express reason of growing rice. Rodent pests have
had a major influence on the success of these
transmigration regions. In southern Kalimantan, the
aim was to develop 900,000 ha. Rodent depredations
to the rice crops grown in these new lowland
irrigated ricecrops were a major factor that led to the
program stopping at 450,000 ha. In eastern
Kalimantan, the impact of rats was so severe that
some farmers stopped growing rice and converted to
livestock (R. Roothaert, CIAT, pers. commun.).
The above are clear examples of how rats can
limit when and where rice can be grown in some
instances. This forgone cost of not growing rice
rarely enters into economic estimates of the impact of
rodents on rice cropping systems.
Summary of impacts of rodents
The above analysis reaffirms that rodent pests are
economically the number one preharvest pest in rice-
growing agricultural systems in Indonesia. This fact
is clearly recognized by the Government of Indonesia
(Table 10). Moreover, approximately 17% losses in
preharvest production of rice nationally would be a
reasonable, and probably conservative, estimate.
If preharvest losses in Indonesia were reduced
from 17% to 8% (an achievable target), then it is
estimated that savings would amount to more than
US$0.6 billion per year. Put another way, rats
consume or damage enough rice to feed an extra 30
million Indonesians for a year—with rice on average
providing 70% of the daily energy requirements of
Indonesians . If these losses were halved, then there
would be sufficient rice to feed an extra 10–15
million Indonesians for a year.

Table 9. Preharvested rice areas damaged annually by rats Table 11a. Rodent damage and crop loss to rats for lowland
in Indonesia, 1997–2000.a rice in 1995.

Year Area damagedb (ha) Damaged Mean damage Area of

Province area (ha) intensity (%) total crop
L M H NH Total loss (ha)

1997 67,763 7,852 1,510 1,203 78, 328 DKI Jakarta 35 10.37 0
1998 127,591 21,722 13,087 11,150 173,550 Jawa Barat 29,006 16.08 241
1999 153,349 49,254 19,497 15,602 237,702 Jawa Tengah 11,282 14.32 662
2000 90,885 15,441 5,386 4,812 116,524 D.I. Yogyakarta 2,138 11.28 0
Jawa Timur 4,493 22.18 485
a
Source: Directorate of Food Crop Protection.b L = light damage D.I. Aceh 5,755 17.90 0
(<25%); M = medium damage (25-50%); H = high damage (50-90%); Sumatera Utara 878 16.00 10
NH = no harvest (>90% damage).
Sumatera Barat 1,073 20.20 25
Riau 700 20.50 12
Jambi 597 24.10 105
Table 10. Ranking of economically important nonweed Sumatera Selatan 2,380 22.50 217
pests of rice in Indonesia. Bengkulu 949 12.70 0
Lampung 1,473 18.60 70
Ranking in decreasing order of economic significance Bali 212 25.40 0
Pest NTB 550 15.90 0
1983-85 1986-90 1991-94 1995-97 NTT 45 5.30 0
Kalimantan Barat 1,476 32.40 337
Rice field rat 1 1 1 1 Kalimantan Tengah 2,781 23.70 446
Brown planthopper 2 4 2 3 Kalimantan Selatan 140 20.20 0
Rice stem borer 4 2 3 2 Kalimantan Timur 1,385 23.10 19
Rice leaffolder 3 3 Not ranked Not ranked Sulawesi Utara 612 28.80 110
Sulawesi Tengah 9,815 14.60 158
a
Source: Forecasting Center for Pest and Diseases, Jatisari, West Sulawesi Selatan 23,362 32.40 2,179
Java. Sulawesi Tenggara 1,972 24.80 149
a
Source: Bureau of Statistics, Government of Indonesia.

11
 Table 11b. Intensity of rodent damage and area damaged by rodents in lowland irrigated rice
in 1995.a

Intensity of rat damage and area damaged (ha)

Province Low Medium High No harvest Total area

(<25%) (25-50%) (50-90%)

D.I Aceh 7,760 729 45 113 8,647

Sumatera Utara 2,204 180 42 35 2,461
Sumatera Barat 537 193 94 34 858
Riau 593 179 56 40 868
Jambi 434 88 16 9 547
Sumatera Selatan 3,295 383 47 225 3,950
Bengkulu 1,108 541 23 174 1,846
Lampung 5,248 764 213 779 7,004
DKI Jakarta 151 61 8 0 220
Jawa Barat 42,794 6,579 5,077 3,258 57,708
Jawa Tengah 14,341 2,298 3,321 925 20,885
D.I. Yogyakarta 757 310 3 54 1,124
Jawa Timur 4,020 444 585 235 5,284
Bali 364 21 0 0 385
Nusa Tenggara Barat 298 107 0 0 405
Nusa Tenggara Timur 212 2 0 0 214
Timor Timur 19 0 0 0 19
Kalimantan Barat 3,170 914 208 442 4,734
Kalimantan Tengah 4,248 417 189 121 4,975
Kalimantan Selatan 1,513 1,152 563 439 3,667
Kalimantan Timur 875 130 0 56 1,061
Sulawesi Utara 294 16 1 0 311
Sulawesi Tengah 1,231 220 72 2 1,525
Sulawesi Selatan 20,579 3,996 1937 3,671 30,183
Sulawesi Tenggara 8,013 1,581 563 685 10,842
Maluku 1,840 110 0 8 1,958
Irian Jaya 103 102 5 0 210
Total 126,001 2,1517 13,068 11,305 15,9057
a
Source: Bureau of Statistics, Government of Indonesia.

many farmers mentioned rodents, they generally

LAO PDR
In Lao PDR, the greatest problem with rodents in
agricultural systems appears to be in the rainfed
upland habitats (Singleton and Pech 1984, Schiller et
al 1999), where the principal pest species are Rattus
exulans, R. losea, R. rattus, Bandicota spp. and Mus
spp. (mainly Mus caroli and M. cervicolor)
(Khamphoukeo et al 2003). Farmers rank rodents as
the second most important constraint to upland rice
production. (Weeds are number one.) However,
upland farmers consider rodents as the problem they
have least control over (Schiller et al 1999).
Lowland rainfed and irrigated rice
Most of the rice (>70%) is grown in the lowlands,
with irrigated rice making up only 12% of the crops.
Information on the impact of rodent pests on rice
production in this cropping system was restricted to
questionnaires conducted on farmers’ perceptions of
production constraints. Schiller et al (1999) reviewed
the data obtained from these questionnaires. Although
ranked them in the lowest three of 11-12 major
constraints identified.
An emerging issue, however, is that the amount
of land under irrigation is increasing by approxi-
mately 10% yr–1. This will result in greater
intensification of cropping, with more crops grown
per year. Based on the experiences of neighboring
countries in the Mekong Delta, rodent problems
would be expected to escalate, unless cropping
systems are developed with the biology of key rodent
pests taken into consideration.
Upland rainfed rice
A survey conducted in 1992 identified rats as the
second most important constraint to upland rice
production (Lao-IRRI 1992).
Acute losses. A major concern often expressed
was the episodic outbreaks of rodents in the upland
cropping systems. These massive outbreaks can lead
to crop losses of >50% and indeed some farmers
reported losses of 100% (Singleton and Petch 1994).
The causes of these outbreaks were not clear. Farmers

12
linked these outbreaks to the flowering of bamboo,
but there was no strong evidence supporting or
denying this explanation. During the current ACIAR-
funded project (1999-2002) on rodent biology and
management in upland agroecosystems in Laos,
historical data have been collected on the occurrence
of outbreaks from a minimum of four districts in each
of four provinces. Some records date back to the
early 1950s and it was evident that outbreaks of
rodent populations were not a recent phenomenon.
The earliest recorded outbreaks were in 1953 in
Houaphanh and in 1957 in Luang Prabang. The most
recent outbreaks were in two districts of Houaphanh
Province in July and August 2001 (Bounneuang
Duang Boupha et al 2003). This outbreak was in
upland rice and maize. Specimens were collected and
this outbreak may have been associated with bamboo
flowering.
Chronic losses. During 1998-2001, site visits to
villages in the uplands of Luang Prabang, Oudomxay,
Houaphanh, and Sekong have provided consistent
information from farmers that annual preharvest
losses to rats were generally around 15%.
Observations of damage to rice crops and recent
formal assessment of rodent damage both support
what farmers are telling us (Bounneuang Duang
Boupha et al 2003).
MALAYSIA
The main rodent pest species in Malaysian rice crops
is the rice field rat R. argentiventer. Annual losses to
rice caused by rodents are 4–5% (MARDI, unpubl.
data, 1994). The yield loss at the national level is
generally patchy, with individual farmers losing large
proportions of their crop. Therefore, for the indivi-
dual farmer, rats can have catastrophic effects on his
livelihood.
There have been no published reports on the
impacts of rodents in Malaysia since the review by
Singleton and Petch (1994). (Refer to this publication
for further details.)
MYANMAR
Agriculture is a major component of the Myanmar
economy, contributing 42% to its GDP with 65% of
the labor force involved in agriculture (http://
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/
bm.html). The main crops are rice, maize, oilseed,
sugarcane, and pulses. Rodents cause significant
damage to each of these commodities, particularly to
rice. Rice is the national staple crop of Myanmar,
accounting for 97% of total food grain production.
There has been a national initiative since 1992 to
increase the area double-cropped with rice. It is
estimated that about 1.5 million ha are currently
double-cropped, although only 18% of rice is grown
under irrigation. A majority of cropping consists of
one rice crop (4 million ha) and other crops in the
spring and winter. Indeed, 53% of rice is grown under
rainfed conditions (http://www.irri.org/vis/facts/
myanmar.pdf).
Chronic rat problems have accompanied double-
cropping elsewhere in Southeast Asia, whereas acute,
sporadic rodent problems are generally associated
with rainfed single rice crops. The farming
communities are generally poorer in the single rice
crop regions, with livelihood security therefore of
major concern when occasional high losses in income
are accrued from rodent depredations. The Myanmar
Agricultural Service has identified the rainfed crops
as the priority for reducing rodent impacts on
production. Moreover, the greatest impacts of rodents
tend to occur among the poorer communities,
because they do not have the economic capital to
absorb chronic losses or sporadic acute losses and do
not have the knowledge base or living conditions to
minimize losses postharvest or to reduce rodent
contamination of food and drinking water. Therefore,
the main potential beneficiaries of rodent
management would be the rainfed farming
communities that have low annual average family
incomes (often less than US$200).
Rodent problems preharvest have a major impact
in Myanmar, where 75% of the population reside in
rural areas and depend on agriculture for their
livelihood. The rodent problem is not well defined,
but in the rice-dominated agricultural system, which
is largely rainfed, the rodent impacts appear to be
patchy and acute, with losses for affected individual
farmers typically in the range of 5-40%.
Little is known in Myanmar about the identity
and geographic distribution of the major rodent pest
species, let alone the biology of the main pest
species. Attaining such knowledge and developing a
simple rodent taxonomic key is a high priority.
Nothing is known about the causes of localized
rodent outbreaks, which occur every year but usually
in different localities each year. An analysis of the
spatial patterns and history of outbreaks against
patterns of rainfall, soil type, water levels, timing of
monsoon rains, etc. would be an essential step in
better defining the problem.
13
PHILIPPINES
The major rodent pest species in the Philippines are
R. tanezumi (synonym: Rattus rattus mindanensis) in
Luzon and the Visayas, and R. argentiventer in the
islands of Mindanao and Mindoro. Rattus norvegicus
and R. exulans generally are of minor concern, except
in the islands of Cebu and Palawan (Fall 1977).
Although there were claims that rodents caused
damage to crops (<1% of annual production) (Hoque
et al 1988, Sumangil 1990), the official figure has
been increased to 3–5% in recent years (Plant
Protection Section, Bureau of Plant Industry) and
reports in 2001 from farmer groups in Iloilo (Panay),
Isabela (northern Luzon); Nueva Ecija (Central
Luzon), and Pangasinan (central west of Luzon)
indicated that actual impact was higher than 10%.
Damage was patchy, with farmers from these regions
reporting annual losses of 30–50% in some years
(Singleton unpubl. data; E. Benigno and D. Sanchez,
NCPC, UPLB, pers. commun.; Appendix 1).
In Central and northern Luzon, the advent of
direct seeding has escalated the rat problem,
especially if there is a mixture between transplanted
and direct-seeded rice (R. Joshi, PhilRice, pers.
commun.). In 1998, 150 rice farmers surveyed from
three municipalities of the Ifugao rice terraces in
northern Luzon identified rats as a major pest. The
farmers also reported that they had little knowledge
on how to manage the impacts of rats (Joshi et al.
2000). PhilRice also has reported high rat damage to
hybrid rice nurseries.
A priority for the Philippines is to quantify the
impacts of rodents. Farmers living in the rice bowls
of the Philippines and staff from both PhilRice and
the National Crop Protection Center (NCPC) provide
a clear message that rodent pests are a major restraint
to rice production. However, the extent of the impact
has not been quantified.
An indirect measure of the importance of rodent
pests is the wide range of management actions
undertaken by farmers (Appendix 1) and the requests
for me to conduct mini farmer field schools (with
NCPC colleagues) on the biology of rats and on the
trap-barrier system. The outputs from the decision
analysis conducted with farmers on factors influen-
cing management actions for rodents are summarized
in Appendix 1.
THAILAND
The principal rodent pests of rice are R. argentiventer
and B. indica, although recent surveys showed R.
losea to be more abundant (Boonsong et al 1999).
14
In rice crops, losses average 6% in lowland and
7% in upland rice. Damage occurs every year in
upland rice, whereas damage is more variable in
lowland crops. Very few data have been collected in
the 1990s. Therefore, the reviews by Singleton and
Petch (1994) and Boonsong et al (1999) are still
current.
There is a heavy use of rodenticides in Thailand.
From 1993 to 1997, the annual government subsidy
for rodenticides for farmers was approximately 20
million baht (US$450,000) (A. Payakaphanta,
Department of Agriculture Extension, pers.
commun.).
VIETNAM
In Vietnam, recent changes in economic structure
affecting agricultural production have led to a
doubling in rice production. This increase has
occurred mainly in the Mekong and Red river deltas.
Factors contributing to this increase in yield include
more land under production and a general increase
from two to three crops per year. Both these practices
benefit rodents by way of increasing their food
supply and extending the periods in a year when
high-quality food is available. The latter would
extend the period of breeding of female rats because
their breeding season is linked with the stage of the
rice crop (from 1-2 wk before maximum tillering
through harvest). It is not surprising, therefore, that
serious rat problems have been reported nationally
since the adoption of the market economy in 1989.
Lowland irrigated rice
In Vietnam, the most common rodent pests in
lowland irrigated rice fields are the rice field rat, R.
argentiventer, and the lesser rice field rat, R. losea.
The rodent problem has escalated in the past 5–10
years. For example, the area of crop severely
damaged by rats increased to more than 600,000 ha
in 1998 (Singleton et al 1999b). In June 1997, the
Vietnamese Ministry for Agriculture and Rural
Development classified rodents as one of the three
most important problems faced by the agricultural
sector.
The rodent problem in Vietnam is thought by
many to be predominantly in the Mekong Delta. In
the early 1990s, this appeared to be the case.
However, in 1999 and 2000, severe rat damage was
reported in a greater rice area in the Red River Delta
than in the Mekong Delta (Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development).
In 1997, 22 provinces applied a rat bounty
scheme for specific times of the year and 55 million
rats were collected. The cost of the bounty scheme
was approximately 62 billion dong (approximately
US$4.5 million). In 1998, an estimated 82 million
rats were killed using bounties and other techniques.
In the province of Vinh Phuc alone, more than 5
million rat tails were returned from January to
September 1998. In this province of only 1.1 million
people, the authorities estimated that there were well
more than 10 million rats; 10 rats for every person.
In the Mekong Delta, in provinces such as Tien
Giang, Dong Thap, and Soc Trang, marked changes
in farming systems have led to increased reports of
rodent impact (Lan et al 2003). These changes
include both the expansion in area of planted rice and
the growing of two or three crops per year where
previously there were only one or two crops per year.
An overview of the increase in impact of rodent pests
in rice fields of the Mekong Delta is presented in
Table 12.
Lowland rainfed rice
There are some provinces in the Mekong Delta that
have significant areas of rainfed rice (e.g., Bac Lieu
and Bac Binh). Again, reports of rodent impacts have
been common in recent years, particularly in Bac
Lieu where there has been a marked expansion in rice
cropping.
CSIRO staff visited Bac Binh Province in March
2001. A survey of rodent impact on rice farmers in
the province had been conducted by World Vision
Vietnam (Le Anh Tuan, unpubl. data). The survey
indicates a current loss of productivity ranging from
10% to 35 %, with the highest losses concentrated in
the mid-land zone. Similar estimates of overall loss
were obtained during our own interviews, with
extreme losses of 50–100 % observed for some
marginal, rainfed cropping areas of the mid-land and
upland regions. Several fields were seen in which
100% loss of the “winter” crop had occurred.
Case study: Bin Thuan District, Bac Binh
Province (K. Aplin and G. Singleton, unpubl.
observations)
The Binh Thuan Pistrict of Bac Binh Province is
made up of a series of distinct landforms that largely
determine the distribution and nature of farming
systems. This natural system is being modified
through the construction of a series of dams and
irrigation canals that will greatly increase the
agricultural area with access to reliable, year-round

Table 12. Rodent situation in south Vietnam, 1991-2000 (see also Lan et al 2003).a

Year Area infected Total area cultivated Distribution

by rats (ha) year –1 (Heavily infected provinces)
(x 103 ha)

1991 6,200 3,162.7 Dong Thap, Long An, Kien Giang, Tien Giang

1992 18,640 3,213.4 Long An, Dong Thap, Kien Giang, Tien Giang, An Giang

1993 107,481 3,257.0 Dong Thap, An Giang, Tay Ninh, Tien Giang, Long
An , Can Tho, Soc Trang

1994 134,616 3,337.0 Long An, Tay Ninh, Soc Trang,

Can Tho, Kien Giang, Dong Thap.
1995 82,706 3,758.3 Long An, Kien Giang, An Giang,
Can Tho, Dong Thap, Minh Hai,
Tay Ninh.
1996 133,600 3,883.2 Long An, Dong Thap, Kien Giang, Can Tho, Bac
Lieu, Soc Trang, Tay Ninh, Vinh Long, An Giang.

1997 138,881 3,976.7 Can Tho, Tay Ninh, Soc Trang , An Giang, Vinh
Long, Ho Chi Minh city,
1998 189,468 4,053.6 Can Tho, Kien Giang, Soc Trang,
Vinh Long, Long An, An Giang,
Dong Thap, Bac Lieu,
1999 245,003 4,108.1 Vinh Long, Kien Giang, Soc Trang,
Tra Vinh, Dong Thap,An Giang,
Long An, Can Tho, Bac Lieu.

2000 111,865 4,049.7 Vinh Long, Ca Mau, Tay Ninh, An Giang, Soc
Trang, Can Tho , Dong Thap, Bac Lieu.
a
Based on regular reports from field extension officers to the Southern Region Plant Protection Center at Tien Giang (data
provided by Mr. Ho Van Chien).

15
water resources. The major rodent species, based on
frequency of capture, were R. argentiventer, B.
savilei, and B. indica.
1. Coastal dune complexes (‘coastal area’): there are
at least two coastal dune complexes in the area, a
younger (Holocene?) complex that consists of white
sand with minimal soil development, and an older
(late Pleistocene?) complex with orange sand and a
more mature soil profile. Both complexes preserve
their original undulating dune morphology and hence
provide a variety of slopes and aspects for agricul-
tural use. These areas are used primarily for
horticultural activity, with only very small areas of
rainfed rice grown in low-lying areas. Apparently,
there are no plans to bring irrigation water to these
areas.
The communes located in this landform are
Hong Phong and Hoa Thang. Survey data for Hoa
Thang indicate a total of 11 ha of rice; with an
estimated yield loss of 30%. Our own interviews
suggested that 10 ha of rice are grown, with low
levels of rodent damage. Three rice crops are
produced per year using water available year-round
from a natural seepage and with synchronized
planting. The major crops for the commune are
watermelon (2,200 ha) and cashew.
2. Major rivers and associated alluvial fans and
terraces (mid-land area): the greater part of this
region consists of a complex of elevated alluvial fans
with predominantly sandy to gravel-rich soil. These
fans are clearly inactive and relate to periods of much
higher river flow and sediment transport than what
occur today. They have a poorly developed soil
profile and are used primarily for grazing or timber
reserves, with some horticultural crops including tree
crops.
The current river courses are inset within this
relict landscape. The channels are typically confined
and have narrow, active alluvial terraces that support
linear complexes of rice fields, presumably making
use of seasonal floodwaters. In several areas, such as
along the southern edge of the Luy River and north
along the lower reaches of its major tributaries, the
channels are bordered by broad, inactive (i.e.,
nonflooding) alluvial terraces with loamy, organic
soil. These terraces stand 3 m or more above the
active channels and constitute the major rice-
cropping areas in Bac Binh District.
Among the communes visited, Luong Son, Phan
Thanh, Phan Ri Thanh, Hai Ninh, and Phan Hiep
have significant areas of rice fields situated on these
16
alluvial terraces, with smaller and less contiguous
areas in Binh An, Phan Dien, and Phan Hoa. In the
majority of areas, these rice fields are exclusively
rainfed and typically support a dual cropping regime
(summer [He Thu] and autumn [Mua] crops), with
occasional third crops (winter-spring [Dong Xuan]) if
conditions permit. Growing seasons are typically 90–
100 d, each separated from the next by a 20–30-d
fallow. All crops are direct-seeded, with the time of
seeding usually determined by individual farmers on
the basis of water availability.
3. Mountains and foothills (upland area): high
mountains enclose Bac Binh District to the north and
northeast, and form the border with Lam Dong and
Ninh Thuan provinces, respectively. The ranges rise
steeply from the alluvial landscape and are penetrated
by narrow valleys with streamside terraces and lower
slopes that provide arable land.
Phan Son Commune was visited where rice
fields are located along several distinct valley
systems, with fields located both in the active stream
channel (flow controlled by small-scale terrace
works) and on raised alluvial terraces (rainfed
systems). Areas immediately upslope of the rice
fields support hamlets and gardens, interspersed with
areas of open scrub. In many places, the stream
valley supports dense thickets of bamboo and shrubs,
often running between areas of rice fields.
The total area of cultivated rice at Phan Son is
close to 340 ha, divided into around 10–12 distinct
field complexes, with the largest areas situated on the
raised terraces. Three rice crops are usually grown,
with fallows of 20–30 d between each crop.
However, some fields were said to produce four crops
without fallow; these may be the fields located in the
valley floor where water is presumably available
year-round and where stream flow may provide
constant nutrient enrichment. All rice fields are
direct-seeded with the timing determined by the
Farmers’ Committee. The intensive cropping regime
was said to have begun in 1990 with the instigation
of a market economy; prior to that date, most fields
were cropped once a year. The farmers in these
habitats identified rodents as an important pest of
their rice crop.
At Phan Son in the uplands, it was claimed that
damage had increased about 10 yr ago, at the time
that they had increased cropping from a single to two
or three crops a year in response to the change to a
market economy.
At Binh An, rodent damage was said to be low at
present. However, the chairman of the People’s
Committee expressed the view that rodent damage
would increase as more areas are brought under
reliable irrigation.
These reports suggest a general link between
levels of rodent damage and increased frequency of
rice cropping. A similar link between agricultural
intensification and rodent damage has been suggested
for other regions of Southeast Asia, including the
Mekong Delta.
In comparison with the preharvest loss,
postharvest damage appears to be fairly minimal.
This was irrespective of whether grain was stored
inside residences or in separate rice stores.
Upland rainfed rice
Apart from the report at Phan Son in Bac Binh
Province, no other information was found on the
impact of rodent pests on upland crops in Vietnam.
Summing up
The statistics tell the story. Nationally, the area of
crop with high rat damage has increased from
approximately 50,000 ha in 1993 to 245,000 ha in
1995 and 600,000 ha in 1998. The impact appeared to
plateau in 1999 with “only” 500,000 ha. This is for a
country that has about 8.1 million ha under
cultivation.
In 1999, the Vietnamese Government developed
a special program on rodent control. Rat committees
were set up in provinces and although there was a
noticeable reduction in rodent impact, there were still
236,500 ha with high rodent damage (consisting of
221,800 ha of rice).
In summary, there is compelling evidence that
rats cause average annual yield losses preharvest to
rice of 10–15%.
Postharvest losses in rice production in
Asia caused by rodents
Rodent and insect pests have an enormous economic
impact on stored grain in developing countries. Many
Asian agricultural institutions regard the magnitude
of postharvest losses as a widespread problem, but
usually no common effort is made to control post-
harvest damage (Hopf et al 1976). Moreover, few
studies have quantified the impact. Damage estimates
strongly depend on assessment methods and reports
of up to 20% postharvest losses of rice are not
unusual. Estimates worldwide put the annual loss of
food caused by rodents at about 11 kg per person; this
value is equivalent to the combined gross national
product of 25 of the poorest countries in the world
(Gwinner et al 1996). Postharvest damage by rodents
includes direct consumption of stored grain and
contamination by rodent excrements, parasites, and
corpses and damage to containers (e.g., bags). Also,
in Indonesia, Suharno (1987) reported that rodent
gnawing was the cause of treatment failures for insect
pests, and increased treatment costs in bag stacks
sealed under plastic enclosures after disinfestation
with carbon dioxide.
In India, losses of grain to rodents are estimated
to be 25-30% postharvest at a cost of at least US$5
billion annually in stored food and seed grain (FAO
1999). Another author claims that this could be a
conservative figure, based on estimates that there are
in excess of 2.5 billion rats in India and each one
potentially could cause US$10–15 billion in damages
each year (Hart 2001). The basis for these figures is
that rodents eat an amount of food equivalent to 7%
(rats) to 20% (mice) of their body weight daily.
Therefore, the potential annual consumption of grain
per rat is about 6.5 kg and per mouse, about 1.5 kg.
These figures consider the potential damage one rat
or mouse could do over a year, but the turnover of
rodent populations is such that the average survival
of rodents would be 3-5 mo. Nevertheless, the
estimates of loss are impressive.
One of the best estimates of rodent impact
postharvest is from a detailed study of rodent pests in
central Punjab in Pakistan, where for every person
living in a village, there were 1.1 house rats.
Extrapolating the results from this regional study to
the national level, it was estimated that 0.33 billion
metric t (rice, maize, and wheat) worth US$30
million were consumed by house rats in the villages
of Pakistan every year (Mustaq-Ul-Hassan 1992).
The study did not consider the impact of rats in and
around major cities.
Control measures are most likely to be efforts by
individual farmers (rodenticides, trapping) often with
little effect (Hopf et al 1976). In many Asian
countries, farmers simply accept postharvest damage
partly due to the lack of simple and effective methods
of rodent control.
In some Asian countries, the species involved in
postharvest damage of several storage facilities are
known from the survey of Hopf et al (1976).
Depending on type of storage, season, and country, a
diverse suite of small rodents such as Rattus spp.
(usually R. norvegicus and R. rattus), Mus spp., and
Bandicota spp. can be important for postharvest
losses. Often, for a particular region, the rodent
species causing damage in the fields are different
from those causing problems postharvest.
Although there is general consensus that rodents
cause substantial postharvest losses, surprisingly little
17
information is available in the scientific literature on
the actual damage and subsequent financial losses.
Rodent damage to stored grain is thought to be high
in tropical and subtropical countries; however,
estimates vary considerably (Table 13).
Within the ASEAN region, few estimates of
damage to grain in storage are available. In the
Philippines, Rubio (1972) estimated rodent damage at
40-206 kg per rice mill warehouse in Laguna.
Sayaboc et al (1984) observed an average daily loss
of 3.6 kg in commercial grain storage. Considering
that there were 100,223 grain storage structures in the
country, national daily loss was estimated to be
38,800-312,824 kg.
With reference to spillage, these authors report
that rodents spill 7.5 times as much grain as they
consume. The model developed by Benigno (1985)
indicated that rat control is more critical in ‘closed’
warehouses that provide optimum reproductive and
survival rates to a resident population. He
recommends long-term studies on reproduction,
survival, and movement, by age classes and by
species, as well as research on the effects of interspe-
cific competition on reproduction and survival.
An ‘expert consultation’ among staff of OECD,
FAO, and WHO has classified rodent damage to
stored products as one of the top seven global rodent
pest problems. In 1979, it was estimated that 33
million t of stored cereal were lost to rodents each
year (WHO 1979). The main rodent species
implicated in eating stored grain are commensal
rodents such as the black rat (R. rattus), the Norway
rat (R. norvegicus), the house mouse (M. domesticus),
and the bandicoot rat (B. indica) (Prakash 1988,
Meyer 1994). All four of these species occur in
Indonesia, where the government’s main grain
handling authority (BULOG) has expressed a strong
interest in reducing rodent losses to stored grain
(Singleton and Petch 1994).
A literature search of several databases showed
that only one article on postharvest damage by
rodents has been published in the journals listed since
1994 (plant science) and 1989 (biological sciences).
In this article, the effectiveness of brodifacoum in

Table 13. Rodent damage in storage facilities, rearranged after Buckle and Smith (1994) and Hopf
et al (1976).

Country Species Damage Source

Laos Rattus spp. Up to 10% Direction de’l Agriculture,

Mus sp. widespread Vientiane, Laos
Malaysia R. exulans Common Crop Protection, Department of
Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
R. rattus diardii Muda (1986)
R. exulans
R. norvegicus
Mus musculus

Thailand R. norvegicus 5% Plant Pest Control Research

R. rattus widespread Centre, Plant Industry Division,
R. exulans Department of Agriculture,
Bandicota sp. Bangkhen, Thailand
Mus spp.

Philippines R. norvegicus 5% Bureau of Plant Industry, Region VI,

M. musculus Iloilo City, Philippines

R. norvegicus Caliboso et al (1986)

R. tanezumi
Korea R. norvegicus 20% Pest Control Section, Plant
R. rattus widespread in in Protection Division, Agricultural
Mus molissimus rural areas Production Bureau, Ministr y of
Agriculture and Forestry, Seoul,
Korea
Indonesia R. rattus diardii Sidik et al (1986)
Mus musculus
(+ Suncus murinus; an
insectivore)

18
storage rooms and other structures on active burrows
is reported (Sarker and Jaeger 1997).
In theory, postharvest management to control
rodents should be relatively straightforward to
implement through focusing on making storage
facilities rodent-proof. However, mice can penetrate
gaps less than 8 mm in size and most rodents are
good climbers and/or can use drains to enter
premises. Moreover, rodent proofing is costly to
construct and also to maintain. Many novel methods
have been used to try to prevent rodents from
entering grain stores in villages in developing
countries, but, at best, these reduce rather than
eliminate infestation. Often, the rodents do not nest in
small village grain stores. This again shifts the focus
on the basic ecology of the rodents that cause
postharvest losses–which species are these, where do
they breed, where do they come from, and when do
they move into grain stores? The answers will depend
on the region, storage facility, and country.
Health impacts of rodents on rice
agroecosystems in Asia
The effect of rodents on human health will be an
emerging issue in the next 5–10 yr. There are more
than 60 rodent-borne zoonoses (diseases that affect
humans) (Gratz 1996). The main diseases for concern
within the rice-growing agricultural zones are
leptospirosis (6,000 cases in Thailand in year 2000
with 320 deaths; A. Payakaphanta, pers. commun.);
the arena- and hantaviruses that cause haemorrhagic
diseases (Mills 1999); the plague (Yersinia pestis); rat
typhus (Rickettsia sp.); and neuro-angiastrongyliasis
(from lungworm of rodents-see Prociv et al 2000).
Many research challenges exist because little is
known about
(i) the status of these zoonoses in Asia;
(ii) which are key reservoir species;
(iii) the persistence of the infective parts of the
disease life cycle in rice agroecosystems; and
(iv) the basic human epidemiology of these
diseases (incidence of infection, morbidity
rates; transmission rates, age- and sex-related
effects, effects of socioeconomic status, etc.).
There have been increasing concerns about
rodent-borne diseases over the past 5–10 yr (see box).
However, much of the work on rodent-disease
interactions has been conducted in developed
countries (e.g., hantaviruses and lyme disease in
USA), in Africa, or in South America (Mills 1999).
There is a general lack of data on rodent-borne
diseases and their impacts in Asia, especially in
Southeast Asia.
There is a rise in concern of rodents as a health risk
in rice agroecosystems because of increase in travel
of people between rural and urban areas and between
countries, increased population density that amplifies
the ability of a disease to spread through a population,
and increased clearance of natural habitats that
promotes rodent-human contact.
In poorer communities, if a rodent zoonotic causes
disability for a poor farmer for a month at a key time,
then it may lead to no crop, a late crop, or reduced
crop yield. Each can lead to a debt treadmill.
Future research and implementation
needs for Asia
An overview of the current management methods
adopted by farmers in the various Asian countries to
control rodents is presented in Table 14. This table
also summarizes the recommended national rodent
management strategies and the lead government
agencies for rodent research and extension. There is a
striking difference between countries in their
approaches to rodent management. Also, in only a
few instances are farmers adopting the management
strategies recommended by government. This serves
to highlight the lack of an integrated management
program for rodent pests that is both effective and
relevant to the needs of farmers with smallholdings.
Historically, farmers have had little direct involve-
ment in the formulation and testing of rodent
management strategies. A high priority, therefore, is
to develop management programs that consider what
farmers are prepared to implement and to have strong
farmer involvement in demonstration projects and
experiments aimed at testing the efficacy of rodent
management.
In Vietnam, farmer participation through
community groups has been an integral part of rodent
management projects in the Mekong and Red River
delta regions during the past 3 yr. The results have
been encouraging. More needs to be done elsewhere
in Asia to encourage strong farmer participatory
research on rodent pests in rice agroecosystems (see
points 7 and 8 in the next section). Linked with this is
the need to develop collaborative projects involving
biologists, social anthropologists, sociologists, and
19
Table 14. Review of current national government priority for managing rodent pests, the lead government agencies for
research and extension, and the principal control actions currently conducted by farmers against rodent pests in rice
production systems.

Country National Farmer Lead government Current control by farmers

government priority agency (government recommendation in parenthesis)
priority
Research Extension

Bangladesh High High BRRI and BARI (and Reactive use of rodenticides; fumigation of
BARI NGOs) burrows; traps (rodenticides-no clear
operational national policy)
Cambodia Moderate High in CARDI AEC Community rat hunts; digging; reactive use of
regions poison (ZnPh of variable quality)
(reactive provision of bounties and ZnPh)
China PR Moderate ?? Various Reactive use of acute and chronic rodenticides
(chronic rodenticides)
India Very high ?? AICRRP
in regions Funded by IRC ICAR Bunds–low growth; trapping; reactive use of
rodenticides in mass-scale control programs
(rodenticides: surveillance then pulse
application; fumigation);
Indonesia Very high Very high CRIFC: RIR DFCP; RIR Reactive use of poisons; fumigation (sulfur);
hunting; bunds – low growth (except main
channels); CTBS; bounty
(EBRM: CTBS; bunds–low growth; synchronous
crops; etc.)
Lao PDR High in uplands High in NAFRI: Provincial
uplands Provincial Dept Dept Agric Bounties; hunting; digging; reactive use of
Agric poison (ZnPh; unknown Chinese)
(no government recommendations formulated)

Malaysia Low Patchy MARDI Dept Agric Reactive use of acute poison (ZnPh);
anticoagulants
(use anticoagulant weekly for 8 wk after
planting crop; barn owls as predator)
Myanmar High High MAS MAS Reactive use of poisons; hunting; digging
Philippines Low Higha ?Not clear BPI,
PhilRice RCPC, Reactive use of acute poison (ZnPh); seasonal
NCPC rat drives (postharvest); digging; bunds–low
growth (sustainable baiting using anticoagulant
after planting crop)
Thailand Moderate ?? DOA-AZRG DOAE-PPS Reactive use of acute poison (ZnPh); digging;
(high for health) hunting (strategic use of chronic [or acute]
poisons; pit traps)

Vietnam Very high Very high MARD: MARD: Bounties; reactive use of poisons (ZnPh;
IAS-south PPD and unknown Chinese; BioRat; anticoagulant);
NIPP-north sub-PPDs plastic fences; CTBS (BioRat; cat as predator
(developing CTBS/EBRM principles))
a
Based on personal visits to the main rice bowls of the Philippines (Iloilo, Isabela, Pangasinan) and on reports directed to me
from other provinces (Laguna, Marinduque, Nueva Ecija).

agronomists. IRRI is well positioned to play a key
role in these multidisciplinary projects because of its
strength and leadership in Asia in socioeconomics
and social anthropology in agricultural systems.
The remainder of this section contains brief
descriptions of research and implementation needs
for Asia in general. Some specific requirements for
each country are provided in an abridged form in
Table 15.
Research and extension emphasis for NARES
(see also Table 15)
1. Basic taxonomy and ecology: Research in rice-
based agroecosystems that aims to develop
ecologically based rodent management that is
environmentally benign and is consistent with
sustainable agricultural practices through
(i) development of a clear understanding of
which rodent species are major pests for

20
Table 15. Review of level of resources, available knowledge from participatory rural assessment (PRA) and some major
opportunities for research and implementation needs.

Standard of resources PRA available Major opportunities (needs)

Country -region(s) In the next 5 yr
Infra- Rodent Extension
structure scientists

Bangladesh ? Limited ?? Limited Clear specification of problem; ecology; farmer

information participatory research; capacity building of
researchers and extension staff

Cambodia Poor Poor Poor Yes Taxonomy; ecology; build expertise in biology
and extension (participatory research);
national laboratory

China PR Good Good ?? Limited ??

information
India Poor Good Medium ?? Consolidation of biological data; coordinated
national program; capacity building and
implementation

Indonesia Good Good Medium to Yes – Java Capacity building of extension staff and
in Java poor farmers; biology of rats in rainfed systems;
biocontrol (sterility); zoonoses

Lao PDR Poor Poor Poor Yes – uplands Ecology; spatial use; build expertise in biology
and lowlands and extension; national laboratory

Malaysia Medium Too few ?? Limited Good experimental study of effect of barn owls on rat
information populations; lure crops for CTBS
Myanmar Poor None Medium None Clear specification of problem; ecology; farmer
participatory research; capacity building of researchers
and extension staff

Philippines Poor Poor Poor Only Iloilo Definition of needs (PRA); build expertise in biology and
extension; EBRM + CTBS
Thailand Good Aging Good Medium Build new expertise in biology; capacity building of
farmers; zoonoses

Vietnam Medium Medium Very good Yes – Red River Build expertise in biology; capacity
& Mekong Delta building of farmers; crop system and impact (GIS)

specific regions and to develop up-to-date
and “user-friendly” taxonomic keys. These
regions include Laos and Cambodia; the
uplands of Vietnam and regions of rainfed
rice such as Bac Binh Province; Kalimantan
and eastern islands of Indonesia.
(ii) understanding the association between
population density and yield loss for the
major pest species in each rice-based
agricultural system (apart from Java,
Indonesia, little is known about this
association). This will set the density
thresholds for action and establish what
proportion of a population would need to be
controlled to reduce yield loss to acceptable
levels.
(iii) a better understanding of the population
ecology of the pest species: breeding
ecology (why is breeding triggered just
prior to maximum tillering), habitat use,
diet (what do rats eat during fallow period
and vegetative stage of rice) and population
dynamics associated with the cropping
systems.
2. Effect of farming systems on rodent dynamics:
Better definition of the impact of different
farming systems on the dynamics and behavior
of rodent pest species; working with farmers to
determine whether farming systems can be
slightly modified (e.g., greater synchrony of
growing of rice crops) to make it less attractive
to rodents.
3. Spatial use: Knowledge of seasonal and
interannual dynamics of how rodent species use
their habitat is fundamental to developing
effective management plans. This information is
lacking in Lao PDR and Cambodia, in rainfed
rice-growing areas of most countries, and is
rudimentary in Bangladesh, Thailand, and
Vietnam.

21
 4. Changes in farming systems and rodent impacts:
Escalations in the impact of rodents on rice-
growing systems in Vietnam indicate that
changes in farming systems (one rice crop to two
or three crops per year; two crops to three crops
per year) may have been responsible. The
collection by IRRI staff of GIS information on
farming systems in Bac Lieu and Soc Trang
since 1995, coupled with regular records of
rodent impact since 1993 for this region (at the
district level), provides an opportunity to
examine this association at a relatively fine scale.
Historical accounts of years of high rat impact
could provide an indication of the association at
a broad scale. Clarification of this association
would
(i) provide a basis for examining modifications
in farming systems for managing the rodent
problem;
(ii) clarify the impact of changing systems from
one rice crop to two crops; two crops to
three crops; rainfed to irrigated; etc, and
hence would assist in forecasting the
consequences of such changes.
5. Balance conservation of beneficial species with
control of pest species: Exploring the impact of
management actions on community ecology
(including nonpest species of rodents) and
alerting governments to the unwanted and
unintended effects of large-scale “culling”
operations. A corollary to this is identifying and
promoting the “ecological services” provided by
nontarget species at risk during these operations.
6. Biological control: Facilitating research on the
potential of biological control of rodent pests,
including the impact of predators, of biocides
such as Sarcocystis, and of fertility control
agents (e.g., immunocontraception).
7. Participatory problem assessment: Through links
with IRRI colleagues with a strong sociological
background, interacting with NARES personnel
and farmers to develop a decision analysis
process that focuses on “best practice
management based on current knowledge.” This
would also help identify key gaps in our
knowledge of the biology, ecology, and
management of particular rodent pests.
8. Sociocultural attitudes toward/economic
constraints to rodent control: It is important to
know why management actions for rodent pests
work in some rice agroecosystems, for some
socioeconomic groups, but not others.
Comparative studies across different cultural
22
groups and agricultural systems will provide an
important insight in the robustness of various
management techniques. Likewise essential are
collaboration with staff from national extension
agencies to assist in developing strong farmer
participation, and sociological studies to identify
which management actions are or are not
adopted and what factors will likely affect these
decisions.
9. Tools to assist researchers from NARES:
(i) Synopsis of the biology of key pest species:
Often researchers and extension personnel
in developing countries do not have easy
access to the literature on rodents. The
CSIRO Rodent Research Group maintains a
catalogue of publications for Southeast
Asia. Of immediate value would be a
synopsis of the biology of each species.
This information could be delivered
together with a taxonomic key using the
package Lucid (“Rodent Lucid”).
(ii) Techniques manuals: The CSIRO Rodent
Research Group has developed a manual on
research techniques for studying rats living
in lowland irrigated rice agroecosystems.
This manual needs to be extended to include
(a) tools for measuring sociological and
agronomical parameters, and (b) biological
techniques for South Asia and rainfed
agroecosystems.
10.Epidemiology of rodent-borne zoonoses: The
effect of rodents on human health will be an
emerging issue in the next 5–10 yr. Of the 60
or so rodent-borne zoonoses (diseases that affect
humans), the most important are leptospirosis,
the arena and hantaviruses that cause
haemorrhagic diseases, the plague, rat typhus,
and lung worm that causes neuro-
angiastrongyliasis. Research is needed to look
into
(i) the status of these zoonoses in Asia,
(ii) the identity of key reservoir species, and
(iii) the persistence of the infective parts of the
disease life cycle in rice agroecosystems.
In summary, there is still much research required
on the general biology of the 8-10 most important
rodent pests in Asia. Our knowledge base falls well
behind that for some of the major insect pests and
disease agents of rice. To highlight this point, I have
summarized the differences in research effort on
these species compared with the principal rodent pest
in Asia, the rice field rat, R. argentiventer (Fig. 1, 2).
References (no.) References (no.)
450 1000

800 IRRI rice bibliography

ISI - Web of science
1986-2001 600

400
300
200

0
er

ts
e
H

r
nt

re
gr

g
BP

Ra
id
n
s ve

bo
Tu

m
ttu nti

em

ll
a
R rge

Ga
St
150 a

Fig. 2. Number of publications from 1986 to 2001 listed in

the IRRI rice bibliography on a subset of rice pests.

0 ARCs) for the specific high-priority tasks in each

country and then in establishing and nurturing
e

t
r

ra
re

d
at

gr
BP

se ar e
bo

ld
Tu

these linkages (both bilateral and multilateral).

+W

am

fie
ou -e
em

m af

ce
t i-m
H
St

Le

Therefore, the REWG could provide an

BP

Ri
ra ult
M

important platform to facilitate fruitful

Fig. 1. Number of publications from 1986 to 2001 in the ISI
web of science on a subset of rice pests. (Note:The multi-
mammate rat is an African species.)
Value-adding to existing research at IRRI
The following existing IRRI projects could be
enhanced through the addition of a specific rodent
component:
1. Integrated Upland Agricultural Research
Program (Luang Prabang, Lao PDR)
2. Accelerating Poverty Elimination Through
Sustainable Resource Management in Coastal
Lands Protected from Salinity Intrusion: A Case
Study in Vietnam (Bac Lieu, Mekong Delta,
Vietnam)
3. Natural Resource Management-International
Rice Parks
Role of IRRI in advancing research and
extension activities on rodents
• IRRI, through the REWG, has identified key
NARES staff. Many of these people, the
extension staff in particular, have other calls on
their time but recognize that rodents are an
important issue. They require leadership on
rodent biology and management and collabo-
rative linkages with experts from ARCs in
developed countries and with colleagues from
other countries in Asia. IRRI can assist through
identifying the right people (from NARES and
interactions between scientists from a variety of
disciplines, nationalities, and agencies.
• IRRI will be able to provide leadership in
“broadly based IPM” projects in rice
agroecosystems through linking research on IPM
of insects and weeds with that of rodents. This is
a most exciting development.
• Monitor developments in contemporary
international rodent projects in agricultural
systems (e.g., EU Staplerat Project in eastern
Africa) to know progress in management of
rodent pests in rice systems.
• Develop an active international network from
developed countries of small mammal specialists
(e.g., ecologists, modelers, epidemiologists,
biotechnologists), wildlife managers, and
extension specialists. IRRI can act as a catalyst
to encourage and facilitate the inputs of these
scientists into practical rodent management in
developing countries. There is a vast pool of
rodent expertise in developed countries,
especially in basic research, but there is not a
focal point for assembling and redirecting this
knowledge and research energy toward food
security and poverty alleviation. IRRI can
provide a high-profile rallying point for this
expertise.
• Through focused training programs, IRRI can
help foster interest and the development of the
next generation of young rodent biologists and
wildlife managers. This is an express need in
Asia where there are too few tertiary institutions
offering appropriate undergraduate courses.

23
 A permanent or part-time rodent biologist at
IRRI can play a major role in developing links with
universities in the region to
(i) assist with the development of syllabus for
tertiary courses in wildlife management in
Southeast Asia where there is a dearth of
such courses, and
(ii) assist with the supervision of post-graduate
students.
Other groups in the world may provide some of these
services from time to time but these groups come and
go, depending on the commitment of specific donor
agencies and/or on the energies of individual scientists.
IRRI has the unique comparative advantage to provide
the foci and regional linkages for research, training, and
continuity, for tackling the important problem of rodent
impacts on rice production.
Short-term “band aid” approaches have not provided
sustainable management in the past, partly because of
the complexity of the problem, but often because of the
lack of continuity of research and extension leadership
for staff from NARES. A concerted long-term coordinated
approach facilitated by IRRI is required to promote,
mentor, and encourage the cur rent and future
generations of rodent research and extension staff in
developing countries.
Opportunities at country level and
possible donor agencies
Specific opportunities or needs for research and
implementation of rodent management on a country
basis are presented in Table 15. This section
addresses a subset of these needs and recommends
possible donor agencies. Most of these agencies have
provided funds in Asia sometime over the past 5 yr
for research on rodent pests or for capacity building
for rodent management.
There are five broad areas:
1. Build on the basic skills that have been
developed in countries such as Lao PDR to
provide progress on rodent management in
rainfed, upland systems (Lao PDR, Thailand,
Vietnam) (ACIAR, SDC)
2. Provide a resource base to support rodent
researchers and extension staff in developing
countries in Asia (IRRI REWG, SDC, ACIAR,
NGOs)
3. Provide assistance in countries that are sadly
lacking in “modern” rodent management
expertise (or simply have little expertise)—e.g.,
Bangladesh (PETTRA funds), Philippines
(AusAID, CIDA, NGOs) and Lao PDR (ACIAR,
AusAID, NGOs)
24
4. Capacity building and implementation in
countries where the infrastructure (rodent
expertise in biology and management and
institutional [government] support) is in place—
Vietnam (and, hopefully, Indonesia, although as
a nation, it has much more diversity in its
agroecosystems, cultural groups, etc.) (AusAID,
IRRI REWG, ACIAR, NGOs)
5. New emphasis (epidemiology of rodent-borne
diseases (leptospirosis, rat typhus, viral-borne
haemorrhagic diseases, plague, lung worm, etc.).
We see rodent impacts on human health as an
important driver for specialist expertise on
rodents in the next 5-10 yr (WHO, Rockefeller
Foundation, pharmaceutical private sector,
USAID, NGOs, Chinese government [for work
in China]).
Possible linkages with other CG centers
Possible links with the International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI)
1. Rodents as reservoirs for disease of livestock and
farmers (e.g., leptospirosis; rat typhus;
salmonella; angiostrongylus; fasciola;
cryptosporidium).
2. Benefits and risks of using rodents caught in
trap-barrier systems as a source of high-protein
supplement for pigs, ducks, and aquaculture (and
humans in some regions). What are the risks of
transferring disease? Can the rats be treated
appropriately (e.g., barbecued) to minimize this
risk?
3. Crop-Animal Systems Research Network
(CASREN)—an ADB-funded initiative in the
Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, and
Thailand that is concentrating on small
landholders (0.3-3.5 ha). Most are rainfed areas
(lowland and upland) and the emphasis is on
complementing livestock production with crop
production. One initiative being proposed for the
Philippines and Indonesia (West Java) is planting
of forage along the borders of crops and on the
banks of main irrigation channels. A conflict may
arise through providing “improved” habitat
harborage (source habitats?) for rats. However,
such conflicts may be resolved if they are
approached from an integrated perspective. For
example, there are key times to keep growth low
along these crop margin habitats for rodent
management, but, at other times of the year, the
focus should be on forage biomass and quality.
Indeed, there are already reports of conflict:
 farmers in the Cirebon area of West Java are
reluctant to grow forage for stock along the
margins of crops because of their concerns about
providing good rat habitat (Dr. Beriajaya
[BALITVET], pers. commun.).
Possible links with Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)
There is nobody working on rodent biology or
management at CIAT but Dr. Anthony Bellotti
indicated that it was a definite gap in their expertise.
References
Anaeto SG, ed. 2000. Management of ricefield rats. Rice
Technology Bulletin No.28. Maligaya (Philippines):
Philippine Rice Research Institute.
Anonymous. 1977. Rodent menace in coastal areas of
Andhra Pradesh. Rodent Newsl. 1:4-5.
Anonymous. 1991. Report of the Second Quinquennial
Review Team 1985-1989 for the All India Coordinated
Research Project on rodent control. New Delhi (India):
Indian Council of Agricultural Research. 45 p.
Anonymous. 1996. National pest survey. Laguna
(Philippines): National Crop Protection Center,
College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines
Los Baños. 59 p.
Barnett SA, Prakash I. 1975. Rodents of economic
importance in India. New Delhi (India): Arnold
Heinemann. 175 p.
Benigno EA. 1985. Use of a population model for planning
control strategies against Rattus rattus mindanensis
Mearns. In: Proceedings of the 8th ASEAN Technical
Seminar on Grain Post-Harvest Technology. ASEAN
Crops Postharvest Programme, Manila, Philippines.
p 65-78.
Boonsong P, Hongnark S, Suasa-ard K, Khoprasert Y,
Promkerd P, Hamarit G, Nookam P, Jäkel T. 1999.
Rodent management in Thailand. In: Singleton GR,
Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based
management of rodent pests. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 338-357.
Bounneuang Douangboupha, Aplin K, Singleton GR. 2003.
Rodent outbreaks in the uplands of Laos: analysis of
historical patterns and the identity of nuu khii. In:
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds.
Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and
management. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 103-111.
Buckle AP. 1988. Integrated management of rice rats in
Indonesia. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 36:111-118.
Buckle AP, Smith RH. 1994. Rodent pests and their control.
Wallingford, Oxon (UK): CAB International.
Caliboso FM, Sayaboc PD, Amoranto MR. 1986. Pest
problems and the use of pesticides in grain storage in
the Philippines. ACIAR Proceedings 14. p 17-29.
Catling HD. 1980. Deepwater rice in Bangladesh: a survey
of its fauna with special reference to insect pests.
(UK): Bangladesh Rice Research Institute and
Overseas Development Administration. (mimeogr.)
Catling HD, Islam Z, Rahman L. 1988. Status of the pests
and diseases in Asian deepwater rice. In: Proceedings
of the 1987 International Deepwater Rice Workshop.
Los Baños (Philippines):International Rice Research
Institute. p 525-537.
Chakraborty S. 1975. Field observations on the biology and
ecology of the lesser bandicoot rat, Bandicota
bengalensis (Gray) in West Bengal. In: Proceedings of
the All Indian Rodent Seminar, Ahmedabad, Rodent
Control Project, Sidhpur, India. p 102-112.
Chakravarthy AK, Shadakshri YG, Gangappa E. 1992.
Rodent damage to rice germplasm in Mudigere,
Karnataka. Rodent Newsl. 16:6.
Chaudhary AK, Badaya AK. 1985. Assessment of losses
caused by field rats to paddy. Annual Report 1984-
1985, AICRP on rodent problems. India: All India
Coordinated Project. p 15-16.
Chauhan NS Saxena RN. 1983. Studies on composition
and ecology of important rodent species of Mizoram.
Rodent Newsl. 6:9-10.
Chen Anguo. 1996. The ecological characteristics and the
control techniques of rodent pests in south agricultural
area. In: Wang Z, Zhang Z, eds. Theory and practice of
rodent pest management. Beijing: Science Press.
p 247-312.
Chopra G, Kaur P, Guraya SS. 1996. Rodents: ecology,
biology and control. New Delhi (India): R. Chand &
Co. 202 p.
Fall MW. 1977. Rodents in tropical rice. Tech. Bull. No.
36. Laguna (Philippines): College of Agriculture,
University of the Philippines Los Baños. 37 p.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1999. Manual of
the prevention of postharvest grain losses-rodent pests.
http://www.fao.org/inpho/vlibrary/gtzhml/ x0065e/
x0065E0j.htm.
Geddes AWM. 1992. The relative importance of pre-
harvest crop pests in Indonesia. Bulletin 47. Kent
(UK): Natural Resources Institute. 70 p.
Gratz NG. 1996. Rodents as carriers of diseases. In: Buckle
AP, Smith RH. eds. Rodent pests and their control.
Wallingford (UK): CAB International. 405 p.
Gwinner J, Harnisch R, Muck O. 1996. Manual of the
prevention of post-harvest grain losses. Rodent pests.
http://www.oneworld.org/globalprojects/humcdrom.
Hart K. 2001. Postharvest losses. In: Pimentel D, ed.
Encyclopedia of pest management. New York: Marcel
Dekker. Electronic web access at http://dekker.com/
servlet/product/DOI/10.1081-E-EPM-100200058/
main/
Hopf HS, Morley GEJ, Humphries JRO. 1976. Rodent
damage to growing crops and to farm and village
storage in tropical and subtropical regions. London
(UK): Centre for Overseas Pest Research and Tropical
Products Institute. 155 p.
25
Hoque MM, Sanchez FF, Benigno EA. 1988. Rodent
problems in selected countries of Southeast Asia and
islands in the Pacific. In: Prakash I, ed. Rodent pest
management. Boca Raton (USA): CRC Press. p 85-99.
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) 1999. IRRI
rice facts, Manila (Philippines): IRRI.
Islam Z, Karim ANMR. 1995. Rat control by trapping
deepwater rice. Int. J. Pest Manage. 41: 229–233.
Islam Z, Morton RG, Jupp BP. 1993. The effects of rat
damage on deepwater rice yields in Bangladesh. Int. J.
Pest Manage. 39:250-254.
Jahn GC, Mak, S, Cox PG, Chhorn N. 1999. Farmer
participatory research on rat management in
Cambodia. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H,
Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based management of
rodent pests. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 358-371.
Joshi RC, Matchoc ORO, Bahatan RG, Dela Peña FA.
2000. Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices of
rice crop and pest management at Ifugao rice terraces,
Philippines. 46, 43-48.
Karim ANMR, Ahmed MS, Mion MY, Hoque ME. 1987.
Rodent ecology and control in deepwater rice. In:
Proceedings of the International Deepwater Rice
Workshop, 23–26 Oct, Bangkok. Los Baños
(Philippines): International Rice Research Institute.
p 605-617.
Khamphoukeo K, Bounneuang Douangboupha, Aplin KA,
Singleton GR. 2003. Pest and non-pest rodents in the
upland agricultural landscape of Laos: a progress
report. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt
DM, eds. Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and
management. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 284-289.
Khush GS. 1993. More food and a safe environment. Food
comes first for Asia. Parkville (Australia): Crawford
Fund for International Agricultural Research. p 31-33.
Lan LP, Aplin KP, Hung NM, Quoc NV, Chien HV, Sang
ND, Singleton, GR. 2003. Rodent communities and
historical trends in rodent damage in the Mekong
Delta of Vietnam: establishing an ecological basis for
effective pest management. In: Singleton GR, Hinds
LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, mice and people:
rodent biology and management. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 290-296.
Lao-IRRI (1992). National rice research program 1991.
Annual technical report. Los Baños (Philippines):
International Rice Research Institute. 156 p.
Leung LK-P. 1998. A review of the management of rodent
pests in Cambodian lowland rice fields. A consultancy
report for Cambodia-IRRI-Australia Project.
Canberra: CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.
Meyer AN. 1994. Rodent control in practice: food stores.
In: Buckle AP, Smith RH, eds. Rodent pests and their
control. Oxon (UK): CAB International. p 273-290.
26
Mills JN. 1999. The role of rodents in emerging human
disease: examples from Hantaviruses and
Arenaviruses. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H,
Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based management of
rodent pests. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 134-160.
Muda A. 1986. Pest problems and the use of pesticides in
grain storage in Malaysia. ACIAR Proceedings No.
14. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 11-16.
Mustaq-Ul-Hassan M. 1992. Population dynamics, food
habits, and economic importance of house rat (Rattus
rattus) in villages and farm houses of central Punjab
(Pakistan). Doctorate thesis, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan. 174 p.
Parshad VR. 1999. Rodent control in India. Int. Pest
Manage. Rev. 4: 97-126.
Patel RK, Avasthi AK, Dubey OP. 1992. Rat damage in rice
fields under dry conditions in Madhya Pradesh, India.
Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 17:21.
Prakash I. 1988. Rodent problems in Asia. In: Rodent pest
management. Prakash I, ed. Boca Raton (Florida):
CRC Press. p 67-84.
Prakash I, Mathur RP. 1987. Management of rodent pests.
New Delhi (India): Indian Council of Agricultural
Research. 112 p.
Prakash BG, Prakash KS, Mahadevappa M. 1986.
Assessment of rodent damage in a hybrid rice trial.
Rodent Newsl. 10:2-3.
Prociv P, Spratt DM, Carlisle MS. 2000. Neuro-
angiostrongyliasis: unresolved issues. Int. J. Parasitol.
30:1295-1303.
Rajasekharan MR, Dharmaraju E. 1975. Studies on field
rodents in Andhra Pradesh. In: Proceedings of the All
India Rodent Seminar, Ahmedabad, Rodent Control
Project, Sidhpur, India. p 54-55.
Rana BD, Jain AP, Tripathi RS. 1994. Fifteen years of
coordinated research on rodent control. Technical
Bulletin No. 3. New Delhi (India): Indian Council of
Agricultural Research. 141 p.
Rangareddy A. 1994. Rodent management in cereal crops
with reference to rice. Paper presented at the Apex
Level Rodent Control Training, 24-26 Oct 1994,
ICAR, NEH Complex, Barapani, Shillong. p 86-92.
Rao AMKM. 1998. Rodent problem and its control in the
flood–affected districts of Andhra Pradesh during
Kharif 1997. Technical report. Hyderabad (India):
National Plant Protection Training Institute.
Rao AMKM. 2003. Rodent problems in India and strategies
for their management. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA,
Krebs CJ, Spratt DM, eds. Rats, mice and people:
rodent biology and management. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 203-212.
Rao AMKM, Joshi NC. 1986. Crop losses due to rodents:
an overview. Indian J. Entomol. 48:366-371.
Rubio RR. 1971. Survey of rat damage in Laguna rice mill
warehouses. Unpublished undergraduate thesis,
College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines,
Laguna, Philippines.
Sarker SK, Jaeger MM. 1997. Control of post-harvest
rodent damage using brodifacoum wax blocks. Trop.
Sci. 37:13-15.
Sayaboc PD, Caliboso FM, Benigno EA, Hilario JM. 1984.
Rodent losses in commercial grain storage. In:
Proceedings of the 7th ASEAN Technical Seminar on
Grain Post-Harvest Technology, 21-24 Aug 1984,
Kuala Lumpur. ASEAN Crops Postharvest
Programme, Manila, Philippines. p 101-116.
Schiller JM, Bounneuang DB, Onechanh B. 1999. Rodents
in agriculture in the Lao PDR—a problem with an
unknown future. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H,
Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based management of
rodent pests. Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre
for International Agricultural Research. p 372-387.
Sidik M, Halid H, Pranata RI. 1986. Pest problems and the
use of pesticides in grain storages in Indonesia. In:
ACIAR Proceedings 14. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 37-43.
Singh YP, Kumar D, Gangwar SK. 1994. Status paper on
rodents in North-Eastern hill region and their
management. Rodent Newsl. 18: 3-11.
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Krebs CJ, Spratt DM. 2003. Rats,
mice and people: rodent biology and management.
Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 564.
Singleton GR, Leirs H, Hinds LA, Zhang Z. 1999a.
Ecologically based management of rodent pests—
reevaluating our approach to an old problem. In:
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds.
Ecologically based management of rodent pests.
Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 17-29.
Singleton GR, Petch DA. 1994. A review of the biology
and management of rodent pests in Southeast Asia.
ACIAR Technical Report No. 30. Canberra
(Australia): Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research, p 65.
Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Brown PR. 2003. Are larger
physical barriers better for controlling the rice field
rat, Rattus argentiventer, in rice crops in Indonesia?
Crop Prot. 22: 7-13.
Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Sadeli Suriapermana. 1998. An
experimental field study to evaluate a trap-barrier
system and fumigation for controlling the rice field
rat, Rattus argentiventer, in rice crops in West Java.
Crop Prot. 17:55-64.
Singleton GR, Sudarmaji, Tran Quang Tan, Jumanta,
Nguyen Quy Hung. 1999b. Physical control of rats in
developing countries. In: Singleton GR, Hinds LA,
Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds. Ecologically based
management of rodent pests. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research. p 178-198.
Sridhara S. 1992. Rice. In: Prakash I, Ghosh PK, eds.
Rodents in Indian agriculture. Vol. 1. Jodhpur (India):
Scientific Publishers. p 211-230.
Suharno P. 1987. Implementation of the carbon dioxide
fumigation technique for insect control in BULOG
warehouses. In: Proceedings of the 9th ASEAN
Technical Seminar on Grain Post-Harvest Technology.
ASEAN Crops Postharvest Programme, Manila,
Philippines p 196-201.
Sumangil JP. 1990. Control of ricefield rats in the
Philippines. In: Quick GR, ed. Rodents and rice.
Report of an expert panel on rice rodent control, Los
Baños (Philippines): International Rice Research
Institute. p 35-47.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1979.
WHO.VBC.79.726, VBC Unit, WHO, Geneva.
Zhang Z, Chen A, Ning Z, Huang X. 1999. Rodent pest
management in agricultural ecosystems in China. In:
Singleton GR, Hinds LA, Leirs H, Zhang Z, eds.
Ecologically based management of rodent pests.
Canberra (Australia): Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research. p 261-284.
Zhao G. 1996. Rodent pest control and plant protection In:
Wang Z, Zhang Z, eds. Theory and practice of rodent
pest management. Beijing: Science Press. p 19-37.
Acknowledgments
During my review of the impact of rodents at the
individual country level, I was fortunate to have
many colleagues provide me with additional
material and provide me with comments on my
findings. I particularly thank Dr. Mohan Rao for
providing information on India, Dr. Guo Cong for his
input on China, Mr. Bounneuang Duangboupha for
his input on Lao PDR, Drs. Sudarmaji for his input
on Indonesia, Mr. Le Thanh Hoa and Mr. La Pham
Lan for their input on Vietnam, Dr. Luke Leung for
his input on Cambodia, Dr. Ravi Joshi and Dr. Edwin
Benigno for their input on the Philippines, and Dr.
Steven Belmain and Dr. Zahirul Islam for their input
on Bangladesh. Dr. Dale Nolte assisted with
compiling the data for Appendix 1. However, the
final decision on what to include in this report is
mine, so I take the responsibility for any errors or
omissions. I wish also to thank Dr. K.L. Heong and
Ms. Ellen Genil for their tremendous support and
encouragement during my time at IRRI, and Dr. Ren
Wang, deputy director general of IRRI, for his
support and for having the vision to invest funds
into having me at IRRI as a consultant on rodents.
Ms. Genil also assisted with the layout of the final
repor t. I acknowledge too the support of the Chief
of Division of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Dr.
Stephen Morton, and my program leader, Dr. Lyn
Hinds, who strongly encouraged me to undertake
this consultancy. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the
sacrifice that my wife, Robyn, and children, Sally
and Rohan, made with me being in the Philippines
and them in Australia. I greatly appreciated their
support and understanding on the importance of
this consultancy for the future of rodent
management in Asia.
27
APPENDIX 1

Decision analysis for Luna, Isabela Province, of current actions plus proposed use of CTBS.

Action Timing Feasible Socially OK Economic Environment- Politicallly Priority

(what) (when) (neighbor) (benefit- friendly acceptable
cost) (gov’t)

1. Zinc phosphide Before maximum Yes Yes Yes No Yes High

tillering
2. Racumin Before maximum Yes Yes Yes No Yes Medium
tillering or as
needed
3. Cleanliness (banks, Always (every 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
villages, etc.) mo - banks)
4. Clever bounty After land Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
(limited season) preparation
5. Digging/flooding When active hole Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
burrows (maximum
tillering to 1 wk
postharvest)
6. Battery operated Anytime Yes Noa Yes No No Low
electric current (with
flooding burrow)
7. Banks <30 cm Land preparation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High

8. Two-month fallow Yes? Yes? Yes Yes Yes Medium

9. Alternate crops (to e.g., soybean Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
promote fallow)
10. CTBS 2-3 wk prior to Yes
main crops (availability Yes Yes Yes Yes Pilot study
of water?)b
a
Thought to affect the libido of male operators–this was a concern raised by a female farmer. bIf availability of water is a problem, then perhaps
use direct seeding (matures 10 d earlier than transplanted rice). Other concern was anticipating when the irrigation water is to be released. Many
plant 3 wk in advance but find the water is delayed for 2 wk so in effect have a 5-wk early trap crop. Direct seeding would reduce this risk by about
10 d. Other action to consider–control of rats along the main irrigation canals. Apparently, this is the responsibility of a specific authority. They
keep the growth of grass in check but that is all. Perhaps they should be encouraged to control rats using fumigation, flame throwers, or
rodenticides.

Decision analysis for San Jacinto/San Jose, Pangasinan Province, of current actions plus proposed
use of CTBS. Note that scale of action is currently at the individual farmer level for most actions.

Action Timing Scale Feasible Socially OK Economic Environment- Politically Priority

(what) (when) (where) (neighbor) (benefit- friendly acceptable
cost) (gov’t)

1. Cleanliness Year-round Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High

(banks,
villages, etc.)
2. Rat hunt (dig/ Oct/Nov Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
flooding burrows)
3. Rat drive Oct/Nov and Community Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium
Mar/Apr
4. Small dikes Land preparation Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High

5. Zinc phosphide Before harvest Farmer ? ? If >5% loss No Yes Medium

6. Racumin Before harvest Farmer ? ? If >5% loss No Yes Low

7. Biological control Year-round Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High

8. Rat traps Year-round Farmer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium

9. Fumigation Dry season Farmer Yes No Yes Yes Yes Low

after harvest
10. Crop timing Planting Community Yes Yes? Yes Yes Yes High

11. CTBS 2-3 wk prior Communitya Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
to main (availability
crops of water?)
a
Price of rice could drop if everyone har vests at the same time.

28
Fig. 1. Cropping schedule at Luna municipality, Isabela.a

May
June Plant crop (takes 2-4 wk to plant crop within barangay)
July Low problem with rats
August
September
Harvest crop (Sept/Oct) WET SEASON (100 cavans ha-1) a
Most rat control work is conducted during
December. Maize can be planted at any time
October of the year.

--------------------------1.5-mo fallow Current practices (farmers’ comments):

*If funds are available, the municipality
November provides zinc phosphide.
*There is no guarantee that the government
December Plant crop (takes 2-4 wk to plant crop) Greatest problem with rats will respond when the farmers have a rodent
problem; occasionally, the response via
January production of poison is too late.
February *Zinc phosphide works the first time and a
few rats are killed, but it does not work as
March Moderate problem with rats well on subsequent attempts (bait shyness).
*Hazards are present; nontarget deaths-kills
Harvest crop (March/Apr) DRY SEASON (120 cavans ha-1) dogs and chickens; they thought dogs were
eating poisoned rats; it is possible that dogs
April were licking or eating bait directly because
zinc phosphide usually breaks down quickly
-----------------------------2-mo fallow once ingested by a rat.
*One participant noted that zinc phosphide
May kills only males and does little to harm the
potential for breeding females.

Fig. 2. Cropping schedule at San Jacinto, Pangasinan. a

May
June Sow or transplant crops Most rat problems occur here
July
August WET SEASON
September
October
Harvest crop (Oct/Nov)
November
-------------------------------------------1-mo fallow
December Sow or transplant crops
January
DRY SEASON
February
a
10% of the farmers grow a third rice crop
March Moderate problem with rats other than the alternative crops listed. Maize
can be grown throughout the year. Main rat
April problems occur during July and August. Rat
problems are less severe during October. Rat
Harvest crop (March/Apr) damage sometimes occurs during the dry
season. Rat damage frequently happens to
-----------------------------Mungbean, vegetable, or maize often grown (April to maize. Average farm size is less than 1 ha.
June) Current rat control methods mentioned by
farmers include rat drives, prayer, use of
May Racumin, zinc phosphide, and maintaining
cleanliness.

29
30
APPENDIX 2

Table 17. Decision analysis for rodent management on the IRRI Farm–12 Oct 2001.

Action Timing Scale (where) Feasible Economic Environment- Socially Politically Priority
(what) (when) (benefit- friendly OK accepted
cost) (public) (IRRI)

1. Sustained Whole year Perimeter and field √ √? X √? √? M review

baiting
2. Need-based Relate to signs of Perimeter and √ √? X? √? √ M review
baiting (pulse) rats (monitoring) field
3. Flame thrower (a) On request Perimeter of √ √ √ √ √ (a) Medium
(b)Strategic crops/fallow (b) High
4. Linear TBS– (a) Whole year Whole farm √Traps ? √√ √ √? High (pilot
selected areas (b) Short season stolen? program)
5. Fallow
management Whole year Whole farm √ √ √ √ √ High
(sanitation)
6. CTBS Whole farm (end √Traps √? √√ √ √ High (pilot
plots?) stolen? program)
7. ABS On request Whole farm √ √? √√ √ √ Low user pays
8. Synchrony of Whole farm √ na √√ √ ?? High
cropping
9. Blanketing At harvest and √Labor- ?? √√ √ √ High
mowing intensive?
10. Covered Canals √ √ √ √ √ Bait–high
canal: baits or Fum-low
fumigation

Comments: Research is required on (i) habitat use and movements by rats; (ii) efficacy of Racumin (first-generation anticoagulant–sustainable baiting) and
bromadiolone (second-generation anticoagulant–pulse baiting); (iii) effectiveness of CTBS on IRRI farm; (iv) efficacy of linear TBS; and (v) breeding ecology of
rats.